What's Your Take on Breadcrumb Trails?
September 08, 2003 | 
31 Comments
So y’all ready for another “What’s Your Take?” Our last, What’s Your Take on Launching New Windows brought up some really good discussion. Feel free to check that out and add your take. I’ll post a summary shortly.
This time I’ve got something I’ve gone back and forth on myself and actually have put quite a bit of thought and research into. I don’t want to color your answer so let’s just get to the question and I’ll chime in after we get a few responses.
I want to know what you think about breadcrumb trails.
First off, let me define a breadcrumb trail as I imagine there might be other names for them — what I don’t want is to get into a semantic discussion. For the purpose of this discussion a breadcrumb trail is a “trail” of links that lets you know where you are in a site as well as gives you a way to get back to where you started. Like this:
Home > Products > Games > Checkers
There are lots of different ways to implement breadcumbs and that is part of the question, so here goes, feel free to answer in anyway you wish, or ask another related question. You don’t have to answer each question or go in order, they’re just there to get you thinking about the topic. Here goes:
- Do you use breadcrumb trails? Either (or both) in your development or as a user of Web sites.
- Why or why not and if so, how? Again, both as a designer/developer and a user.
- Do you feel that breadcrumbs are useful?
- Do you feel they work as supplemental navigation? Or only as way-finding? Are different implementations better than others? What are some examples?
- Where do you feel they best located on the page? Does it even matter?
- Have you ever been involved user testing breadcrumbs? What have you learned?
Filed under: Web Design
Comments
1. Ken Walker said:
1. I implemented a breadcrumb trail very recently on our family site. I also use breadcrumb trails on websites, but only when their presentation “makes sense”–Adam Kalsey’s presentation, for example. Mark Pilgrim’s breadcrumb trails, while informative, are sort of “out of the way” for me to go find and use.
2. I ended up implementing breadcrumb trails because our site was getting increasingly complex. When it was just a blog on the homepage, there wasn’t a lot of reason to use a complex metaphor. Now that we have an about section and photo sections, I thought it was crucial to give the user a way to “step back” through the hierarchy I had created. I use breadcrumb trails to navigate similar hierarchies on other sites.
3. Yes, but not always necessary.
4. Supplemental, usually. I haven’t seen any implementations that might be better or worse than any other, short of page placement. More prominently placed breadcrumbs are easier to use than those that are hard to see or find.
5. I think it matters. Close to your content, towards the top of the page.
6. Nope. :)
Posted on September 8, 2003 06:17 PM | #
2. Sasa Velickovic said:
Funny you should mention that. As a developer I always consider implementing trails and most of the time I do. As a user I _always_ forget using them. Sometimes I catch myself not finding the right way and using the backbutton or hacking the url. Instead I could have simply used the trail to go “one up”. I have some interesting reading too.
Breadcrumb Navigation: Further Investigation of Usage
on Usability News
Essentially the article says that users not being offered the breadcrumbs navigate about as efficient as others who get offered a breadcrumb.
Quote:
Breadcrumb users were found to use the Back button less often than users who did not use the breadcrumb; however, no differences were found in the efficiency measures of total pages visited, navigation bar clicks, embedded link clicks, or time to complete the search tasks.
Cheers
Posted on September 8, 2003 07:08 PM | #
3. Sean Voisen said:
I tend to almost always implement breadcrumb trails, and then as a user, I rarely use them. Maybe they’re just not noticable enough, and I don’t think they’re as intuitive as people think. They offer a linear solution for a web-like structure.
But clients almost always like them … especially when they don’t ask for them. Then it looks like you have this great little idea that just adds a nice finishing touch to their site.
Posted on September 8, 2003 08:04 PM | #
4. adam said:
I find they serve a useful orientational purpose for deep sites, however I find myself using contextual navigation all the time.
This is probably due to the fact I reckon I can “just get there” by following links in context, rather than “admitting i’m lost” and using the obvious signage.
Perhaps it’s a male thing and parallels driving styles?
Posted on September 8, 2003 10:02 PM | #
5. Boyink said:
As others have mentioned, I’ve implemented them, read the research that doesn’t seem to favor them, and don’t often use them myself. But they don’t take much real estate, and can help force a developer to think more deeply about the structure of a site, so I still like them.
Posted on September 9, 2003 05:45 AM | #
6. Bob said:
1a) As a developer, there has only ever been one instance where I have implemented breadcrumbs. Most of the sites I’ve developed (I believe) are not deep enough to warrant them. The persistent navigation on the site is usually enough.
1b) As a user, I may or may not use them depending on how difficult the site is to navigate.
2) See above. :-)
3) I think breadcrumbs are useful in complex sites with multiple levels of navigation where one could easily get “lost” without them. Being able to back up one or two levels without going all the way back to the home page is useful.
4) I believe they’re useful in all the ways you mention: one person may use them as supplemental navigation, another as wayfinding. I think it depends on the experience level of the user as to how they use breadcrumbs.
5) I think most users expect to find breadcrumbs at the top of the page. I personally believe that, especially in cases where the page in question is two or more pages in length, that positioning breadcrumbs at the top and bottom of the page is the most useful.
6) No, I have not. :-)
Posted on September 9, 2003 08:08 AM | #
7. michael said:
1) As for developing, I haven’t used breadcrumbs that much but I’m still a beginner, so that’s that. As a user, I don’t use them for much more than orientation. I prefer the back button. I don’t know why exactly.
2) See above.
3) They are useful. Again, for letting me know where I am on a site and I’m sure some people actually use them for the links.
4) I think I answered this one already.
5) Normally I see them at the top of the page, which makes sense to me. Knowing where you are before getting to the content.
6) Nope.
Posted on September 9, 2003 09:53 AM | #
8. Sarah said:
I find breadcrumbs really useful when I’ve linked to the page from a different area of the site or from a completely different site. It helps me know how I can easily go back to the more broad related page on the site and find more information.
Otherwise I’ll use the back button to go back to the last page I was at.
As a developer I haven’t used breadcrumbs, but that is more likely because the sites I develop aren’t deep enough to require them.
Posted on September 9, 2003 03:05 PM | #
9. Minz Meyer said:
I don’t use them (either as designer or user).
As a user I prefer the Home button (if I am lost) or the backbutton.
Since I am used to use tabbed browsing this happens seldom.
I think a site with straightforward navigation and navigational aids in the content doesn’t need breadcrumbs (does amazon have?).
Every time I used breadcrumbs I “landed” on pages I have not visited before…..confusing.
Posted on September 9, 2003 03:40 PM | #
10. Stefan Walter said:
1) As a user I use breadcrumbs, not excessivly but if i find it helps me to navigate in the hierarchy of the website I’ll use it. As a developer I try to implement it because I’m sure that some people will use it – and those who don’t won’t blame me for putting it in. It doesn’t hurt anyone (at least I hope so) :)
2) See above
3) It depends, in a deep website it helps to jump between the different levels and to determine your current position. It doesn’t make much sense to me in a small website with only one or two levels e.g. but again, I don’t think anybody can complain when it’s implemented, if you don’t need it you’ll ignore it imho
4) I think it’s both. It’s like the red dot on maps labelled “You’re here”. It will help to determine where you’re at and – together with the ‘main’ navigation – where you can go from here.
5) On the top of the page, close to the main navigation
6) Unfortunately not :)
Posted on September 9, 2003 04:01 PM | #
11. Taylor said:
I’ve never found breadcrumb navigation necessary or appealing. Unless the website is quite complex/deep in structure I dont see the need for it. Even then, as the usability test stated above mentioned, theres hardly a difference in efficiency.
On a side note, 384 items magically loaded in my RSS feed for you all of a sudden, going back months. Weird.
Posted on September 9, 2003 11:01 PM | #
12. Georgi said:
I think it’s essential to have breadcrumbs on large sites. But I’ more interested on what do they should look like and what they contain. Should the separator sign be >, or may be |? I personally prefer > because its meaning is “more than”. And which should be the last item in the breadcrumb trail - the current level in the hierarchy (example: if you are reading a sport news story, should the breadcrumb look like Home > News > Sports ), the upper level in the hierarchy (Home > News), the title of the current page (Home > News > Sports > Giants loose in the last 30 seconds) or else?
Sorry for my poor English :)
Posted on September 10, 2003 07:39 AM | #
13. Keith said:
I love the comments so far. My take on breadcrumbs is that I feel that they are of limited use to the user, and this is backed up by some general usability testing I’ve been involved with. In general they are used more as a signpost than as navigation (as was said before users tend to use the back and home buttons) although linking them would be best if your are going to use them.
However, they are fairly easy to implement and if done well, on the right kind of site, they can’t hurt and will help some folks orient themselves in a large IA if nothing else.
Having said that, I feel like there are other, better ways you can help your users get around and orient themselves. A good site map or index, good page titles and headlines and a well thought-out primary navigation system are must haves for any large or complex site.
All in all I’d say if you have the resources and your site warrants it, go ahead an use them. As far as implementation goes:
Unobtrusive, small yet readable, located near the top of the content or the heading, and must not compete with any primary navigation.
Oh and I like “>” as well as a separator, but I don’t think it’s all that big a deal what you use.
Posted on September 10, 2003 10:11 AM | #
14. caiuschen said:
1) Yes to both.
2) It was requested in a design. As a user, I use it only when I hit a page via search engine and find that it is close, but not quite what I need. It’s sort of like hacking the URI, but in a more convenient fashion.
3) Occasionally.
4) They help you see what sort of site you are in when you just randomly land on a page, I guess. I like the separators to have direction, too.
5) Near the top, small and unobtrusive.
6) Nope.
Posted on September 10, 2003 01:12 PM | #
15. Mike said:
I have to admit, I use breadcrumb trails whenever I’m designing a page for a client (or for myself). I mainly prefer to have it near the top, semi-connected to the main navigation for the site for usability reasons that I’ll talk about in a sec.
My favorite usability test that I’ve conducted was for a printer driver download page for an extremely large and extremely global Fortune 50 company.
Results showed that if the breadcrumb trail was not visually or physically connected to the main navigation, users tended not to see it or understand its meaning.
I prefer to use the » character myself ;)
Mike
Posted on September 10, 2003 01:55 PM | #
16. Johndan said:
Most of my sites are pretty shallow, so I don’t tend to use breadcrumbs often when I design (I’d have fifteen labels at any level, but only a few levels of depth). But I use them a lot when I’m navigating other sites, especially if they’re deep and complicated.
I’m usually not *happy* that I have to use them, because they tend to signal that I can’t figure out where I am in the site based on other, typical characteristics (like content). For example, I have to use them constantly when I’m in Blackboard (the online learning environment) for a course I teach on IA. Blackboard’s labeling system is overlapping and vague, and the editing interface to content is separate from the content itself. So I find myself having to navigate by the breadcrumb trail just to figure out what category a certain function is housed in.
Posted on September 11, 2003 04:31 PM | #
17. Pete said:
I’m late with this I know.
I was part of a 3 person team looking are a huge intranet [at least 50,000 pages]. When I joined the original design had breadcrumbs right down to the current folder [sometimes that was at least 6 or 7 folders], when we had to redesigned quickly due to a merger so we cut down the breadcrumbs to “Selected Section Portal › Main Section page”, no one complained, I doubt anyone even noticed.
Posted on September 16, 2003 02:17 AM | #
18. Boyd Pearson said:
They are not just used for navigation. They also provide a symantic map of the site which may be used for navigation outside of the trail.
Posted on December 2, 2003 01:30 PM | #
19. Peter da Silva said:
I use breadcrumb trails as a developer and as a user.
As a developer, I always try and err on the side of providing more links than necessary. I provide links forward and back between related sections, up and down the conceptual tree, and in context.
As a user I often jump around on a site, following contextual links, and so the breadcrumbs are a valuable way to get back to the “beginning of the scene” when I walk in the middle. They’re also invaluable when hitting the middle of a site from a search engine.
I don’t see them as having any relationship at all to a “back” button. They’re not the breadcrumb *I* left behind, they’re the one the designer left behind when he conceptually visited it during building.
On my latest project I included the ability to bookmark a page. The breadcrumb trail for this site could get very long, so I terminate it at a bookmark, when you want to get further back you click on the bookmark and see the rest of the path.
They’re not just useful, they’re essential for any site with a nontrivial graph. They may be primary (they are in the site my name links to) or supplemental navigation, but if they’re supplemental they’re important supplemental navigation.
Where do they go? Wherever you’re most likely to be looking when you need them. That usually means just under the main navigation bar, but it could mean down at the bottom of the page as well.
Posted on May 2, 2004 05:21 PM | #
20. Monika said:
There are times when you land on a page from a search engine. The page you land on is one that is barried within a site. Therefore if you click the back button it simply takes you back to the search engine. So breadcrumbs are very helpful in that case to help you navigate through the site. (hope that didn’t sound too cofusing)
Posted on June 14, 2004 12:19 PM | #
21. Monika said:
There are times when you land on a page from a search engine. The page you land on is one that is barried within a site. Therefore if you click the back button it simply takes you back to the search engine. So breadcrumbs are very helpful in that case to help you navigate through the site. (hope that didn’t sound too cofusing)
Posted on June 14, 2004 12:22 PM | #
22. jucy said:
http://deposit.acholipeace.org/foakuu/ backfearsoftening
Posted on September 3, 2005 01:40 AM | #
23. braid said:
http://onlineschool.mvoicesfl.org/2249934/ canceledequipmentknuckles
Posted on September 8, 2005 03:37 AM | #
24. sniffle said:
http://www.ycba.org/lvd2y5ga/ licmixedwiggle
Posted on September 11, 2005 09:29 AM | #
25. flakes said:
http://playslot.eastgranbylibrary.org/vadu4dgmq/ grudgepartsreligious
Posted on September 13, 2005 11:16 AM | #
26. pounced said:
http://www.anzwers.net/hot/pissings/2013/lesbian_pee_sex.html sightstickysubmit
Posted on October 16, 2005 09:34 PM | #
27. cooper said:
http://www.energy-exchange.org/wwwboard/messages/2041.html clungglisteningkeyboard
Posted on October 21, 2005 02:55 AM | #
28. existance said:
http://www.anzwers.net/hot/ronti/xzwyxc/ needspetaltrussed
Posted on October 22, 2005 03:02 AM | #
29. van said:
http://www.anzwers.net/hot/klosex/xgedolxmzb/ cumeeyegliding
Posted on October 23, 2005 08:22 PM | #
30. planes said:
http://tits.anzwers.net/fatgirls/4449/breast.html baseinchesmelted
Posted on October 25, 2005 12:40 AM | #
31. fingering said:
http://www.anzwers.net/hot/newmens/kfyyhqrf/ inwardlongupset
Posted on October 26, 2005 08:42 PM | #
Comments are now closed