The IA of Topic Maps Based Portals
One thing that has crossed and stuck on my mind lately, is how information is presented on topic maps based web portals.
Topic Maps based portals typically, or should I say obviously, use a subject centric approach for presenting information: every page presents information about a subject (represented by a topic in the topic map).
And most topic maps based portals lay out the information about those subject in much the same way:
- Page name = topic name.
- Page body = occurrences; e.g. description or article text.
- Right column = associations.
(In addition to this, the left column will most likely consist the standard global navigation menu).
Let’s take a look at a few examples:
![]()
Screen shot of government.no.
![]()
Screen shot of bergen.kommune.no.
![]()
Screen shot of www.forskning.no.
Now, what’s interesting is that one of the most interesting parts of the topic map (as far as I consider), the part that enables associative navigation and makes a difference compared to other technologies; the associations, are placed in the right column — a common spot for banner ads and less-important/interesting information that users have learned to overlook.
This makes me wonder: has anyone ever done user testing on topic maps based portals that might reveal how many users use the associative feature of topic maps - excluding the use of menus and the like?
How many users figure that the right column holds interesting information about related subjects and actually click these links?
I doubt topic maps based portals are wide spread enough for users to know that the associations are of interest — and in any way, which user knows - or cares - what goes on behind the scenes? And does it even matter, as long as the site is usable (in general)?
I am pretty sure it is important (as always) to use effective visual cues in order to direct the user’s attention towards the associations. Some of the examples above do better at presenting the associations visually — forskning.no almost appears to be hiding them, while bergen.kommune.no’s approach doesn’t seem too bad — for user’s to spot them while scanning the page for useful information. Still, it makes me wonder …
October 1st, 2007 at 18:08
I think you make a valid point, that we don’t really know how users experience the associations on the right-hand side, and that there is a chance that they might overlook them because they assume that this is where the ads are.
So far I’ve only seen one study of user behaviour on Topic Maps-driven web sites (Oh and Park, TMRA 2006), and that study did not look at this aspect at all. Instead they compared the success/failure rate of users on a number of tasks on two comparable sites, one TM-based and one not.
It would be interesting to see this tested somehow. Either automatically (by sniffing what links people follow) or through user testing.
October 2nd, 2007 at 08:12
Yes, I guess most studies are probably in-house user testing of the sites in general, which is good, but it would be nice to know more about this.
It’s not just the banner ads, but general eye-tracking studies (http://www.useit.com/eyetracking/) seems to suggest that the right-most column is basically overlooked …. perhaps this changes when and if the user “senses” (hehe) that the info is of interest?