OTC Goes Bold With Redesign

I want to extend a sincere congratulations to the folks at Ozarks Technical Community College on their redesign. It is probably one of the single most brave things I’ve seen a college do with their homepage in quite some time, for better or worse. And that’s good, because that’s how everyone learns. Someone has to take a chance once in a while. What especially caught my attention though was that they basically did something I never really thought would be possible. Back in 2009, I wrote a bit on the principles of IA in large sites like a university. Several conversations ultimately were spun off that article, one of which involved talking about the idea of driving a university site’s navigation entirely through search.

Back then, it was little more than a pipe dream though. Random musings about a “what if” scenario. There’s so much to consider for it – and I’m not even talking about things like the political side of university sites – that as neat as the idea seemed, I never thought it could be done. And while I applaud OTC’s attempt, I still think the approach is not really ready – though it could be with just a little more work. Here’s why.

Majors Search Results

Majors Search Results

Probably the most important thing is SEO. If you are going to lean so heavily on search, that means your site – all of it – needs to have pristine SEO so that everything can be found and located properly. We’re talking meta data, keyword density, link text, the whole shebang. OTC is using a Google Appliance of some kind, which can afford you a lot of power (sadly, Google discontinued the Mini this year, leaving only the more expensive GSA on the product line). You can see some of that power in action if you do a search for “programs.” Note at the top, you specifically get the keymatch that they manually entered to make sure that a search for “programs” always results in the right page first thing. That’s good. Now do a search for “majors.” No keymatch this time referring the visitor to the programs page. The top matches aren’t relevant at all, as a matter of fact. That’s not to say the results are consistently bad, but in this approach, there’s just so little room for error.

PSU’s unified search

PSU’s unified search

Another pain point for me here is the use of the stock results page as well. It’s bland, uninteresting, and doesn’t invite the user to explore the results. They have added additional search options above the box, but they aren’t integrated at all – each is a different landing page that isn’t necessarily search related. Lastly, they don’t seem to be taking advantage of collections, which can make a GSA or Mini so powerful in getting users into the right “bucket” of information. Collections are a way of filtering content into logical categories of some kind. For instance, you could have a “News” collection that keeps all the press releases searchable and separate from the normal search. At PSU, their search is an example of both unified search and collections (seen to the right). Things like “athletics” and “classes” are collections, while “people directory” is actually a separate system. But it all works through the single interface (though the people results do go to a different results page, so it’s not entirely unified).

Something else, and this is specific to the GSAs still, is that they don’t appear to be using OneBox modules either. That’s the perfect way, for instance, to try and pull in some of those external searches from the result page header, like departmental and contact searching. For instance, do a search for “NUR 230,” a nursing program course. Using a OneBox module, they could instantly provide course information, schedules, associated books, teachers, etc. If you want more examples, the OneBox is what gives you instant results in Google when you do things like typing in a FedEx tracking number, looking for movie times, checking the weather, and so on. That’s the trick here. If you’re going to go all in, blow it out of the water. Universities have TONS of structured data that could be presented this way, to fantastic results. Won’t someone think of the user’s clicky finger?

From an article at the Community College Times:

OTC Chancellor Hal Higdon said a review of the college’s website using Google Analytics showed that more than 80 percent of site visitors find what they look for through an outside search tool or OTC’s Google search server. Often, visitors skip the front page and go directly to the search box to quickly find the information they need.

Google Analytics Site Search Usage report

Google Analytics Site Search Usage report

Admittedly, I know nothing about just what went into this research (and if anyone at OTC reads this, I live in Pittsburg, KS, about an hour and a half from you – let’s talk), but I would caution any school interested in this that analytics alone will absolutely not give you the full picture here. It can give you a lot of information, to be sure, but context and intent are intimately important to this particular endeavor. For instance, it’s easy to say that people may search a lot on a site because the the navigation or IA sucks – something analytics alone won’t tell you. So it would seem reasonable that going all search would avoid that problem, since search is designed to do an end-around on such things (this is, of course, assuming you aren’t considering things like nav and IA in your search logic). But maybe they search simply because your content sucks, and they’re trying to find something more informative. That’s a content problem. My point is, know your problems and know your goals. Have a plan for each, isolate your success metrics, and have a maintenance and measurement scheme ready.

And there certainly may be something to catering to users that search. A quick look deeper into the Google Analytics report sampled above (you do look at your search reports, right?) revealed some extremely interesting metrics. For instance, the average user spend 4:33 minutes on the site, as opposed to 11:48 minutes for users that searched. Users that don’t search viewed on average 2.73 page compared to 8.28 for searching users. But, what the analytics here don’t tell me is why. But hopefully, if your numbers are similar, you would want to know the answer to see if there’s something valuable there to be leverage.

There’s something else that bugs me, though. While I don’t want to nitpick, I feel the need to point some of this out.

“Start Here” navigation

“Start Here” navigation

In trying to mimic Google, they also used a “services header” on the homepage. That’s fine, go for it. But, I gotta admit the logo really bugs me. It just looks stuck on and clip-arty. But more than that, I am really bugged by the “Start Here” link. First off, “Start Here” isn’t at all descriptive about what to expect when I click on it. And once I did, I was confused that I was looking at a page with a careers based URI, but the content seemed to be related to academic programs. That’s just a labeling thing, but it’s a pretty major one, since it’s first chair in what little navigation they have. They also added a “more” link. While I know this is in line with mimicking Google, it smells too much like rebranded quick links. As a user, if the goal is to have me search, why would I click the “more” link rather than just type in the keyword for what I want? From the very start, you’re already inviting me to break with your intended navigation scheme, and that’s a dangerous game.

At the end of the day, I still think there’s something to this. Every university struggles desperately with IA and navigation. Awesome, global search just seems natural. The barriers that will most commonly prevent success are technology that can’t deliver, and the politics of university web maintenance. If you’re considering it, keep this stuff in mind:

  • Hire a full time SEO person. Period. Don’t be cheap here.
  • Don’t abandon navigation all together. Consider your “services” that require fast access. This requires a shift in thinking, making your homepage that of a “service provider,” rather than whatever you are now.
  • Spend six months on taxonomy. Card sorting. User research. Whatever people call something, make sure those keywords are mapped and accounted for
  • Make use of autocomplete and dynamic results (again, both things Google does). Save your users as much time as you can, and help eliminate mistakes.
  • Utilize tools like OneBox or similar systems to provide enhanced result data for commonly accessed, structured data.
  • Make sure you have a reporting system on pages. A “Was this what you were looking for?” flag people can click that will report the page and search that sent them there.
  • Accept the fact that you may have to take away a lot of editing rights from people to prevent pollution of your results. Two words – Quality. Control.
  • You might consider splitting the site into a sort of “gated” and “ungated” area, where the gated area is vetted, approved, specific info. The ungated section is everything else that no student ever cares about.
  • Respect the results page and how important it is
  • Unify your search platforms
  • Measure and track everything. Can you tell me the most viewed, but unclicked autocomplete keywords? Most common misspellings? Keywords most likely to result in an application? Bounce rate after a search result? And these are just some of the easy ones.
  • Your search needs to be smarter than your users. It should know what they want, regardless of how they ask for it. It needs to deliver, accurately, without question. It needs to adapt incessantly.
  • Hire a full time SEO person. Period. Don’t be cheap here.
Edinboro’s keyword autocomplete

Edinboro’s keyword autocomplete

Oh, there’s one more important thing here. I don’t care if your homepage is a Google knockoff or not, you should care about search. Almost all of my bulletpoints above hold true no matter what your web strategy entails. Edinboro University is one I credit with putting a ton of work into mapping keywords for things on their site to an autocomplete feature for their search. Their keyword system is a completely secondary system too, it’s not in a GSA or anything like that, but they unified it properly so the user’s experience is seamless. All they know is they are getting good recommendations that can save them keystrokes. But otherwise, Edinboro’s search is implemented just like any normal search, nothing else special about it. But the details, the little things, that’s what can matter the most.

Good search is like a life preserver. It can save a visit. It doesn’t matter if it’s just a tool, or your entire navigation. Bad search frustrates users and drives them away, and I don’t know anyone in that business. At the end of the day, I have no doubt OTC will continue to improve, and for a community college I have a ton of respect for the effort they’ve put forth here. I’m damn interested to see how it evolves.

Does no one understand why this could be construed to be confusing page navigation?

Tasty, Useful Breadcrumbs

Did you by chance read User Interface Engineering’s article “Design Cop-out #2: Breadcrumbs?”   I’ll admit that I am a little bit late getting back around to this topic, which I originally read sometime back in… oh… August?   October?  Regardless, right after reading it I knew that I needed to offer a counterpoint, because while not completely incorrect, I felt that the original author was not entirely even handed with the topic, and in some cases sort of dropped the ball.


Here’s the recap/summary of the original article linked above:  Crumb trails, like many things, are a tool.  You use them like a localized site map, helping to expose your site’s information architecture to the user in a useful manner.  Creation of a crumb trail is not a good use of time, however, because they take resources to create.  These resources could be better used determining WHY a user needed to use it in the first place.  In other words, they either aren’t really needed, or are a symptom of a larger problem.  When they aren’t needed, time isn’t really taken to craft them “right” or “well,” and if people are using them a lot, then you have to wonder why your site is designed so poorly that they are so necessary.  That was the basic point of the article, and in some ways, it is a good point.  In most other ways… not so much.

doteduguru_bc“So, Michael,” you might be asking yourself, “what do you disagree with then?”  Well steady reader, I’m so glad you asked me that!  The thing is, I agree with them that you should pay attention to their usage, and if a lot of people are turning to them, you might take some time to ask “why?”  But, the answers can be many: maybe they are awesome useful, for example.  That’s possible.  Maybe they don’t get used at all, except by a few people, but if those few people use them, I’ll lay money that if you removed them, you’d hear about it fast.  This is a similar case to the idea of a “quick links” drop down menu on a home page.  I HATE these and feel that if there’s one tool that qualifies as a cop-out, that’s one, because it’s just a link dumping ground.  But when we removed it during our redesign, my how we heard about it.  Ceaselessly.  And still are.  You could also think of it like an A-Z index.  It amazes me how many people I work with who will turn to it before anything else to go places on the site.  As the original author mentions though, I live in the IA of our site, the users don’t.  What they will do however, is find a tool that works, and stick to it.  These types of navigational tools are secondary aids, and what people tend to do is use them in cases where it gets them where they want to go.  Many times, they will mix and match. It’s rather fun to watch them do live, while you stand there behind them pulling your hair out as they butcher what you thought was a smooth, flowing information architecture.  Not that it isn’t still nice, it’s just that users will find a way that they think works best, and even if you show them a faster, simpler way, a lot of people don’t like it because it is both different, and not something they did on their own.


Crumb trails are just such a tool.  The fact of the matter is, if 11% of your users are hitting them (as Jared mentions in that original article), it’s because they are a useful tool.  To them.  The original author goes on to mention this:

“The idea behind how breadcrumbs should be used is simple: the user ignores them until they get to a page that isn’t quite what they wanted. They discover the trail of links and click on the one most likely to contain the correct path to what they were originally seeking.”

Which I think is patently incorrect.  A user doesn’t necessarily click on a bread crumb because they think it will take them somewhere better or put them on a correct path, nor is there any reason to believe they are used only by lost visitors in the first place.  They click them so that they can surface up in a web site and potentially begin navigating anew.  It’s almost like zooming out on a picture.  Maybe they’ll look for the same thing somewhere else, or maybe they want more information on a related subject that is in that same basic branch of the site, and then again maybe they want to surface quickly to look for something new all together.  I will agree that they might use it to take a new path, but the purpose and destination could ultimately be entirely different.  Assuming you have taken the slightest modicum of care with building bread crumbs, users will recognize them as a reflection of the hierarchy of your site’s information architecture, making them a tool that users have no reason to ignore if they are viewed as an aid to going where they want to go.  Using the previous example, it’d be like saying users ignore an A-Z index until they simply have no other recourse than to look there for something.  Theoretically that might be true, but in practice, there are a lot of people that view such a page as their primary navigational element (even though to us, technically speaking, it’s secondary).  Unfortunately in analytics, we can’t really measure intention or perception.  In the index case though, it’s our 7th most visited page, with 60% of entrances coming straight from the home page, and the top 10 pages from there being things that are not hard to find.  The end conclusion then is that there’s no reason to believe this generic navigational tool is a cop-out. (note: I wish I had stats on our crumb trail to share, but unfortunately I do not, at this time. I’d love to see stats from others though, either for or against this opinion.)


“Many users don’t recognized them and, therefore, don’t take advantage of them. They may recognize them, but become confused because the elements in a location breadcrumb doesn’t represent any path the user thinks they’ve traversed.”

This is another statement that sort of sits sideways with me.  I don’t know whether it is true or false, but the author doesn’t give any kind of research to back it up, leading me to believe that he might think this is true, but doesn’t actually know it.  I’m probably hardly one to criticize that, because I do the same thing, but to say most users don’t recognize them and therefore don’t take advantage of them is a pretty bold statement, especially when early in the article he directly references some informal statistics claiming that 11% of users are clicking them.  That’s certainly a big enough group for me to pay attention.  I admit that I’ve done no usability testing on crumb trails, but my lack of testing is not something I’d use as a basis of discounting the feature.  Lucky for me, others have.  Further, analytics certainly can’t tell you a user’s opinion on the tool, and if that idea came from a usability study, I would like to read it.  On the contrary side, I highly recommend Jakob Nielsen’s article “Breadcrumb Navigation Increasingly Useful” from last year which lays this matter out far better than I could hope to.

“We’re recommending that when teams see users needing breadcrumbs, they look for other holistic design solutions. They’ll need to watch users and see the circumstances leading up to how the need arises. In almost all cases, they’ll find a better way to solve the problem than traditional breadcrumbs.”

Here I will switch case and agree with him.  If your users need bread crumbs to navigate your site, I think you have some design/layout and information architecture issues to address.  The key to successful bread crumbs is that they should be a secondary navigational tool.  But, I would argue that people don’t use them because they need them, they use them because they see them as a means to get to where they want to go.  As far as the user is concerned, that might be a quick link, an A to Z index, a menu, or a bread crumb (and all of these, minus menus, are generally secondary tools).  The thing is most users neither know these terms nor care about them.  All they care about is “I click here and go where I want.”  I agree with Jared that given perfect IA, smart menus, and intelligent visitors, bread crumbs are a waste of time.  In reality, few people run sites that function in such a static bubble that one person has control over every facet of how information is disseminated.  This goes triple true in higher ed, when we’re lucky people can even put the right information anywhere, and you’re relying on 100 different people to do it all.  It’s like saying “In a perfect country, we wouldn’t need laws to punish robbers, because no one would steal from each other.”  The reality is, people do steal.  That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to stop them, and shouldn’t minimize the problem, but you still must address the issue.  So what do we do?  We create a ton of secondary navigational elements, build them nicely into our layout, and let the user decide how they want to combine them to go where they need.


This is why the last thing I believe a crumb trail is, is a cop-out.  Frankly, I think it’s our duty to give visitors as many tools as we can to find their way around the site.  To say a crumb trail is hard to “get right” kind of dumbfounds me.  There are only a few ways to do them, and none of them are particularly “wrong.”  The original author never even gives you an example of what a “bad” crumb trail is.  Admittedly, not every site needs a crumb trail, but certainly in higher education where we deal with sites that have tens of thousands of pages, the more paths we give to find information, the better.  Things like microsites, portfolio sites, or any sites that serve fairly singular purposes don’t really need them, otherwise, slap that puppy on there.  All we’re talking about is one line of text, basically, and any design worth their salt can find room for that in a layout.  Does it need a top level featuring?  Heck no. Maybe it ends up falling to the bottom of the page, almost an afterthought, but it’s there for the people that want it.  Just remember to keep things consistent, and meet users’ expectations.

Here’s an analogy:  Say I have a paint can.  One could argue that the right way to use it is to run it through a paint shaker, and then use a paint can opener on it.  Sometimes though, it’s just faster, easier, and more convenient to shake the crap out of it myself and use a screwdriver to open it.  Is that the perfect solution? Nope, but I always get the can open, and it’s no worse for the wear.  Crumb trails are the same thing.  They might not be the most perfect, elegant way to get around the site, but there are a lot of times where it’s a tool that can just as easily get the job done.

On a more minor note, it’s worth mentioning that good bread crumb trails can also be an SEO boost for pages that use them, which never hurts the ol’ analytics.  Bread crumbs can also help users develop a mental map of the site and view it in a hierarchal manner.  Both of these can help boost a user’s perception of your site.  If they see your pages higher in search results, obviously that helps credibility (not to mention the accuracy of the results, if you’re using keywords in the crumb trail).  If users mentally understand the setup and organization of your site, it will improve their opinion of the site’s usability, and also aid them when searching in the future.  Ultimately, the usability should be the primary concern for a crumb trail, but these are nice side effects to weigh as well.

What are the takeaways from this, in my opinion?

  • Not every site needs a crumb trail
  • Crumb trails are simple to implement
  • Crumb trails are hard to “do wrong”
  • Usage of crumb trails does not necessarily imply a problem in site architecture
  • There are a lot of reasons we should use crumb trails on higher ed sites
  • Crumb trails are not a “cop-out,” they are just one more in a list of ways to get around a site
  • Be consistent in their usage and meet users’ expectations with them
  • Crumb trails have SEO benefits
  • Don’t give me a can of paint