The Concept of "Home" -- Your Take
July 07, 2004 | 
26 Comments
The concept and application of “home” pages on the Web is something I’ve had to think about a bit lately. I have to give props to Scrivs for bringing it up to the front of my mind.
He has a nice post and interesting discussion on the necessity of “home” links on Web site. You might want to go read some of that first.
I want to expand on that topic and bring up a few issues that have been on my plate lately. It’s an interesting topic!
I personally feel that explicit “home” links should be a staple of most Web sites. As with anything there are exceptions, but if we’re talking about large informational a “home” like is as close to a must as you can get.
If for nothing else but to help users who come in via search. I think this is a huge area Web designers of all stripes need to address and there is lots of room for improvement in this on many Web sites out there.
I also think the home link should almost always be labeled “home”.
Having said all that, there are questions as to what is really “home” on some sites. For many sites the concept of a “home” page is straight-forward. On others, it’s not so easy. I work on multiple sites down at the hospital where this is the case. If it’s a sub-site for our Heart Center, for example, is “home” the main page of the sub-site, or the main page of the hospital?
Are there two “homes”? A Web page duplex?
What about logos? It’s a general practice to link the logo to “home”, but this isn’t always straight-forward either. The Heart Center may have it’s own logo, or it may not. Either way we need to place the hospital mark somewhere.
What about a co-branded site? Where is it’s home? Often times with a co-brand you’ll have multiple logos. Which do you link to “home”?
As you can see, lots of questions here. Let’s talk about it. What is your take on the concept of “home” and how it’s handled on Web sites? Does every site need a “home”? What about sites with multiple pages that could be called “home”? Are there any rules we should follow when it comes to homepages and linking to them? What about logos? Should they always be linked?
Filed under: Web General
Comments
1. Derek said:
Home to me is usually the root domain of the site… By clicking on home I expect to go from www.amazon.com/asdfoasdf/asfd/adsfasdfaosdf/sfdosafoasfdlwetglad to www.amazon.com/. As for the sub-sites, I think you could let people know where they would be going in the way you designed and placed the site. If you’re site has a global navigation, and the home link is there, you could expect to go to the root URL. If there are sub-navigation elements for each sub section with a home link, you could expect to go to the front of that section. Or maybe the sub-sections wouldn’t need a home page link.
Amazon handles it pretty well… The Office Depot site could be though of as a sub-site, and it’s clear (to me anyway) that if you click on the Office Depot logo, you’ll go to the Office Depot home page, if you click on the amazon logo, you’ll go to the amazon home page.
Posted on July 7, 2004 01:00 PM | #
2. Robert Lofthouse said:
A block of apartments is a home, with many homes within it. At the end of the day, when you want to go home, you don’t want to be left outside the apartment block, you want to go straight to your front door (and be able to find your way around it when you’re drunk).
Relating that to web sites:
Look at a web site portal as being a block of apartments. Each individual apartment within it is a unique web site that belongs to the portal. When you navigate an individual web site, you should always be able to link back to the start of it - no matter if it isn’t the root.
If for example I was commenting on something in Scrivs’ blog, I submitted it and now I want to go back to the “main page” - when I click home, I want to go back to the main page of the whitespace web site where I can see the topics with recent comments. I certainly don’t want to be taken to the 9 rules network.
So, if your web sites within a portal are unique - then you should try and put some form of “home” link on each of them which links back to the start of that unique site. If they’re not unique, but merely a sub-section, then you should put a home link that points to the root.
Of course, not everyone needs a “home link”.
Sorry for re-iterating some things that I said on Scriv’s site.
Posted on July 7, 2004 01:11 PM | #
3. Sally said:
Here’s a twist: I work for a company that sells products that are easily divided into “Car” and “Home” categories. Whenever we reevaluate our global navigation, the “Home” link potentially introduces problems, since our users may assume this means Home Products.
Posted on July 7, 2004 01:43 PM | #
4. Robert Lofthouse said:
Sally: Call it “main” then. There aren’t many alternatives to home.
It all depends on the web site, your company might not need a “home link” as i’ve mentioned before.
Posted on July 7, 2004 01:47 PM | #
5. jason stanfill said:
I agree that there has to be a way to get to the site’s originating page, but I am not sure that it has to be called home. I do, however, don’t like the idea of assuming that the main image links home, because I think a lot of people wouldn’t get that.
I titled mine “front page” because I was thinking like a newspaper with sections, but the front page is the beginning with the most important content (that could be questioned but you get the point).
I also think sites like www.mikeindustries.com are interesting because you don’t ever need to go to the root because you can navigate to any section from any pages inside.
Posted on July 7, 2004 02:29 PM | #
6. Ove Klykken said:
Linking your logo to the homepage seems unnecessary if your navigation works, and your Home link is in a pertinent position.
I think most people expect a ‘home’ link to go to the root of the website. If you’re having several section on your website, with each their ‘homepage’, I would, as in your example with the hospitals Heart Center, maybe call it something like ‘Heart Center Homepage’ or similar.
Posted on July 7, 2004 02:43 PM | #
7. jek said:
First, I seem to have overblown the topic now after having read everyone’s comments. Of course, what is written below I started writing when only Derek’s comment existed. One comment first about the www.mikeindustries.com site. It’s home is what I call an intro. There is no need to go back to it, but I know some people like to bookmark only the root url, so it creates an unnecessary first step to the site unless a cookie is introduced. Anyway, here is what I wrote earlier:
These are loose thoughts. Please excuse me. Also, be warned, I am a born-again newbie.
The main obstacle in re-designing my soon-to-launch site has been the concept of home. Yes, what is home? Derek makes good points with which I agree, and yes home should be labeled home, directing users to the domain’s index page. But home has become a hierarchical concept that it not ought to be. The web feels middle-out and so should a website. Ideally, one ought to be able to go directly anywhere from anywhere.
With a website of multi-branded sub-sites, each sub-site index page can serve as home as both Keith and Derek suggest. Each sub-site index page can serve the role of index/search overlord as home does now.
As I have been developing the navigation for my site I believe that the hierarchical home must be replaced with the multiple-home concept. Seems as if users have developed the poor habit of going home just so they can get their bearings and restart their browsing. This is fine if it is the “ummm” of browsing, but it should never be required to be an extra step in getting somewhere. Sub-site homes ought to be more like a downtown where every intersection serves as a locator. The pedestrian can usually make it from there. And each page ought to be like looking down a street, seeing other intersections and landmarks. If people come in from a web search, they ought to be directed to a page that contains the intersections and landmarks. No need to first learn where and then walk back to First and Main. [He says not yet having fully conceptualized his thoughts…]
My plan is to have every page within each of my four or five sub-sites to be less than three clicks from one another. A home page will always be one click away. Thus, my goal of having every page on my site be within four clicks of one another can be attained. Is this a lofty goal? I do not know.
There are two concepts that can help attain this goal. One is search and the other is indexing.
Indexing serves an option search cannot. That option is browsing. And sometimes browsing is preferred to searching. Obviously, shopping at Amazon.com is different than “no thank you, just browsing” at your local bookstore. Many websites do a good job of catering to the browser but I say it can be improved without requiring excessive clicking or scrolling.
Intra-site search will continue to improve but I think it is a bit of a cop-out to rely upon it. The user is forced to have an idea of direction. That is not necessarily a good thing.
And indexing needs to be improved as well. Heck, for an obvious function it seems overlooked (as a topic as well). Too many indexes cater to dial-up thought over the broadband concept and rarely offer the choice of the latter. With proper design, broadband users could click once and scroll no more than a screen to get to a desired spot. However, with the necessity of designing for dial-up, the wading through subcategories of subcategories is time-consuming not too mention tedious for the broadband user. At least provide the option of the all-encompassing feature in addition to the bits’n’pieces. [Or is this a server load issue?]
Anyway, I am hoping that there are in-process, auto-gen indexing tools out there to take out the grunt work of page creation. Perhaps, this is how I will use PHP.
But what do I know?! I last designed websites in 1997. All I know is that I don’t intend to develop a site that duplicates the heavy clicking/heavy scrolling experience so many websites provide.
BTW, what is the optimal click count range to reach desired info, one to what? Is my goal of four (three, anyone?) clicks outrageously absurd?
Posted on July 7, 2004 03:44 PM | #
8. Keith said:
jek – thanks for the thoughts. I new this would be an interesting issue. So, as far as the number of clicks to reach desired info:
As many as it takes to get where you are trying to go.
Really I don’t think the amount of clicks is what matters most. It’s the idea that you are on the right track and can get back if you get sidetracked. Obviously it’s better to be able to access the info quicker, but having less clicks does not assure someone will get to the desired info quicker.
There is more to it than just clicks. If you have 5,000 links on your home page you might have 1-click access to everything on your site. But now a user has to wade through 5,000 links. Same goes for drop-downs. I’ve seen many users who simply don’t use flyout or drop-downs at all.
There is a balance to be reached here. The goal shouldn’t be the number of clicks. It should be making the info as easy as possible to get to. If I recall UIE has done quite a bit of research on this. Jared Spool referred to it as “scent” of information or something like that.
Read Tesing the Three-click Rule by Josh Porter. Also you can check an article on Web design rules I wrote.
Also, if you want better indexing, the place to start is with page titles and metadata. But that’s another topic all together.
Posted on July 7, 2004 04:07 PM | #
9. Ben said:
I know, the the whole discussion is both philosophical and conceptual. But it is also about navigation and orientation - for the visitor. Of course, the “root” of the site should appear in the menu, but don’t use just the term “Home”, as if you didn’t know what it’s content is.
The same way you structure and name all the other menu items, you should let the reader know what to expect when clicking Home. So give it a meaningful name, such as Frontpage, News, etc.
“Home to me is usually the root domain of the site”: to you as the designer of the site maybe. But this has no meaning for the visitors, who can come in thru any door and leave thru any window. They are interested in content, not in structure, they don’t even want to learn about the structure of your site.
The entry page is like any other page, the reason why it is always called index.htm(l) is purely technical.
Remember: the web doesn’t have the notion of hierarchie, it is held together by navigational links. Every reader creates his/her own “structure” by freely following links.
Posted on July 7, 2004 05:31 PM | #
10. Keith said:
Ben – You make an interesting point, depending on the site. “Home” works, but there are others that may be just fine, or better (?) on some sites.
The thing is, and I’m no guru, I’ve yet to see a user have a problem with the label “home”…I have seen users confused when the home page labeled “about” or “intro” or “overview”…but, again, sometimes “about” IS “home” so what do you do??
As much as I hate to say it I think “home” is a pretty common convention. You don’t have to call your “root domain” “home” but if you do you should be pretty safe as far as the users are concerned.
I’m not saying you have to use “home”. I mean Apple uses and Apple icon, Amazon uses “Welcome” – but “home” does work in many cases.
But then again – it depends on the site and the site’s users. Not sure there is a clear cut answer when it comes to the label.
When in doubt – test it out.
Oh, wow, I made a cool rhyme. Need to remember that one.
Posted on July 7, 2004 05:48 PM | #
11. James Robertson said:
I’m guessing this might for the intranet project you’ve blogged about earlier. If so:
* Users will probably just think of everything online as the one “intranet site”, and the concept of sub-sites will be pretty unfamiliar.
* I’m a strong advocate of a single “brand” across the entire intranet, with no separately-branded sub-sites.
* With a consistent page layout and design, the concept of “home” becomes pretty easy.
* At the end of the day, these are just my opinions, so: conduct user testing! Both usability testing and contextual inquiry will help you on this one.
Cheers, James
Posted on July 7, 2004 07:39 PM | #
12. vanderwal said:
Many enterprise sites have problems with home as their are a multitude of sites and sub-sites under many roofs that comprise a home. In some organizations that are just reining in their *let any flower bloom* era and moving toward a more centralized approach the four or five levels of sites and sub-sites with subs of their subs, etc. is a mess.
It is best to use home and state which home is being discussed, that is often clarified with the header logo and branding, unless it is cross-branded. State Human Resources Home (or HR Home if using a title attribute or the logo/brand is in close proximity) and Corporate Home.
I really like clicking the header logo to get back to home, but in user testing that option is rarely used. This does require a home button to get home as many users do not come in to a site through the home page most sites have 40 percent or more dropping in the middle of their site from search, e-mailed links, external hyperlinks, or bookmarks. I have seen logs that have numbers above 75 percent of the users regularly dropping in the middle of a site. The Home button is like the label in a shirt letting the user know which way is front.
Posted on July 7, 2004 08:08 PM | #
13. Ryan Latham said:
Home is where the heart is.
Simply stated, where ever the big juicy, suculant, tasty, tender content of the site is (sorry I’m hungry, or perhaps another feeling that begins with H and ends with Y), that is your home.
Posted on July 7, 2004 11:59 PM | #
14. Michael Watts said:
Home certainly does seem to be somewhat of a convention around the web, which in my view is a good thing. If it is reasonably consistent across websites (except for those where it may not be applicable like the home products example above) it makes things easier for users. If they use alot of sites where home is labeled as home they know what that button does.
Personally i use home a great deal, i’ll browse thru something i’m interested in on a site then go home to see if there is asnything else of any interest to me linked on the front page before browsing elsewhere.
As far as issues with home on sub-sites go, i think using the term sub-site complicates things. If you look at each site as a seperate entity, one being the child of another i think it is easier to rationalise a way to deal with “home navigation”.
To use hospitals as an example:
If i were browsing a site for the Pathology unit at Kuwait Hospital, my expectations would be:
Well thats my take on how to best deal with things, hope it made sense!!!
Posted on July 8, 2004 01:34 AM | #
15. Aleksandar said:
Here is one example where Home is (would) not (be) appropriate.
Sports is used as reference to home page. At first, we did have Home there, but when other betting channels were added, it became meaningless as each of the channels has its own home. Those other two existing channels are not good example as they redirect to different sites, but there are few in development that would open on the same site. So this was a preemptive strike to educate customers.
It’s just a business decision that Sports is opened by default.
Posted on July 8, 2004 06:56 AM | #
16. Eric said:
Interesting. I just did my first site (www.creeksidebanquet.com) without an explicit “home” or “main” link - instead, it is the first about page. Time will tell whether that was a bad decision, but my thought was along the lines of what has already been discussed about the web being non-hierarchical. Why label the about the facility page “home” when it really is “about the facility”? That is applying a preconceived, non-semantic definition to a collection of data that really is “about”. I think the home idea is only really relevant where the front page is a central jumping-off point, like Yahoo or Google.
We’ll see. I sold my boss on it for Creekside; maybe we’ll get some feedback on the site after it’s been up awhile.
Posted on July 8, 2004 07:39 AM | #
17. Michael Watts said:
Eric: I’ll agree with what you’re saying about labeling it as the about page being the right thing to do - and it seems to work quite well for that site.
The Creek Side site takes a different approach to the information that is displayed to start off, which makes your approach appropriate.
Most sites though start off with a general page with snippets to direct you to other area’s of interest, rather than just containing data from a single area of the site.
Posted on July 8, 2004 08:09 AM | #
18. Christian Machmeier said:
A simple question: What, if there’s no home, but a start page? A page that’s loaded by default, but isn’t the domain’s root. Example? See here: http://www.redsplash.de/
Posted on July 8, 2004 01:21 PM | #
19. Ben said:
“What, if there’s no home, but a start page”. The point I’m trying to make is that each section/page in a site should have a topic. Even we as site designers should have a clue as to what goes on that page and why it doesn’t fit on another one. So just say what’s on your mind when you create that “first” page!
All I’m asking for is: give me a good reason why I should click Home once I have entered your site through another page. I know what to expect when clicking menus like Archives, About, Design Tips, but what about Home/Start/First/Welcome?
One of the reasons the term Home Page is itching me, is that it is being used indiscriminently to designate about everything on the web:
Jakob Nielsen “10. Don’t include an active link to the homepage on the homepage”
Posted on July 8, 2004 06:44 PM | #
20. jek said:
While I agree with Jakob’s statement, right off the bat it teaches the user that, say, a logo in the banner that is otherwise an active link to the ‘home’ page will not work on other pages. If the user has clicked the logo on the home page and is rewarded with nothing, what incentive does the person have to ever click it again? It is better to have the logo active and refresh the home page than to teach the user a contradictory usage pattern.
Posted on July 8, 2004 07:17 PM | #
21. jek said:
…otherwise, yes, call the home page a start page that one never goes back to unless manually accessing through the address bar. Which means nothing should be on this type of home-start page that isn’t elsewhere.
- jek, with foot awfully close to mouth
Posted on July 8, 2004 07:27 PM | #
22. Niket said:
I faced a similar dilemma while designing the website for a NPO. I was to design the site for Atlanta action center. The dilemma for me was should the “home” link to the Atlanta home or the main home page. What I ended up doing was to link “home” to the Atlanta home page and to link the logo to the main home page.
The added layer of complexity was provided by the fund-raising events. We wanted the event websites to be stand-alone. We didn’t want to bombard the event participants with other information about the organization and its activities. But equally important was to provide links for the interested audience, and to somehow maintain “brand identity.” I did this in a clumsy manner: putting important links regarding other fund-raising and development projects in the footer, and keeping the header and footer common for the entire site.
Since I had already spent over 50 hours working for free, I just brushed these issues aside. But your post made me think what would be the best way in such situations.
Posted on July 8, 2004 08:52 PM | #
23. Jonathan Snook said:
I’ve been meaning to comment on this article since you wrote it. Firstly, I don’t see why every site doesn’t have a home link, or rather, have some way of accessing the entry page to a site. It doesn’t have to say “Home” but it should be obvious that it will get you where you want to go.
Surprisingly, I find the Government of Canada and some of its agencies have implemented this quite well. Firstly, there’s a black nav bar that’s on ALL govt sites including all agencies. There’s a “Canada Site” button. This will get you to the main govt site from no matter where you are. Since each agency has its own branding, you have a way to get back. The button is called the same thing no matter what agency site you’re on. From there, some agencies get it right and some don’t. The NRC, for example, has a number of institutes which, again, can carry their own design. Each site must have an “NRC Site” button in the nav and it must always be in the same place.
Kevin, since you’re managing a hospital site where you probably have a number of sub-sites, creating a way to get to the home of a sub-site and to the home of the main site are definitely good ideas. Like mentioned in a previous comment, I support a similarly branded experience across all sites within an agency. Again, the NRC does this well. Look through any of the institutes and you can see the NRC branding. The identifier in the bottom left, the swoosh at the top, the placement of elements. This gives each institute the flexibility of creating the own identity within the overall brand of the larger organization.
Posted on July 9, 2004 06:06 AM | #
24. Dave M said:
I manage a group of regional office intranet sub-sites; a sub-site would be for a functional group (Design, Admin, HR, IT, etc.). I am trying to make it the standard for all of our regional pages to have four levels/types of Home links: regional intranet home, all-intranet home, regional functional group home, and main office functional group home. The easiest Home link to get to is the regional intranet home page, while the typical browser Home setting is the all-intranet home page. These links are all text and appear in one menu/list or another. Although it may be a reflection of our org. chart to have all these different Home options, I don’t think people are confused by what they mean.
I have wanted to develop an attractive and meaningful logo for our regional intranet but haven’t had any luck or real motivation to do it. One reason it’s not a big deal for us NOT to have a top-left-logo-link-to-home is that it’s not a common feature of any intranet sub-sites.
If anyone has any good references on intranet architecture and design, please share. I just don’t want to pay $200 for Jakob Nielsen’s latest intranet study. :-)
Posted on July 9, 2004 06:20 AM | #
25. David House said:
Just to add more wood on the fire, don’t forget that the default page loaded when the browser is started up is also called the ‘home page’. Deadly.
Posted on July 12, 2004 10:00 AM | #
26. jek said:
Forgetting a keyword in a recent Google search and then seeing what resulted in my mistake had me thinking of this discussion. What better website to be number one for a Google search on ‘home’ than www.nasa.gov!
Posted on July 30, 2004 11:04 AM | #
Comments are now closed