26

One of our clients has a content-rich website with about 300 pages of content in total. We did our utmost best to provide a very clear main navigation, but also provide a search function in the header.

In the past two years we had more than 80,000 visits. The search function has been used in 1.39% of these visits. Looking at the items that are search for they are generic in nature: things that are easily found by using the main navigation.

My feeling is that the people who used the search functionality just like to navigate that way, instead of being unable to find the content through the main navigation.

Now considering these two things: the low percentage of searches per visit and the queries being used I lean to the idea removing the search functionality altogether to un-clutter the navigation bar (the search function takes up 25% of the navigation width).

My question: is this reasoning sane? Or am I overlooking something?

UPDATE: Some excellent questions were asked, of which I combined my answers in this update.

  • Search usage is split almost perfectly 50-50 between new and returning visitors.

  • In general the search is working pretty well. But I have two make two important side notes:

    • A) Some of the queries have zero results because we simply don't have that kind of content. A good example are queries for vacancies, which we don't post on the website. We could add some content around this (a page stating we don't have/post vacancies), but it's no false negative.
    • B) Some of the queries are really generic in nature (just a single word) and although content is returned it's really not clear what the search is looking for based on the query. It's too ambiguous.

  • 78% of the 80,000 visits have a visit depth of 1 or 2 pages. 22% have a visit depth of more than 2 pages. This is also explainable considering that almost 65% of all visits comes from external search engines (mostly Google), and users mostly arrive on the page they are looking for (looking at their query and the landing page).

Benny Skogberg
  • 54,996
  • 22
  • 140
  • 241
  • 1
    Any idea about who is using the search bar, returning visitors or new ones? – Igor-G Dec 06 '12 at 10:37
  • Good question! The split is almost a perfect 50-50. The only thing that's significantly different is that returning visitors have a larger search depth and longer time on site compared to the new visitors. –  Dec 06 '12 at 10:43
  • 5
    And another question, does your search works properly? I mean, looking at the statistics how many of the users who actually used the search are satisfied with the results (clicks and stay at the pages were found, etc)? – alexeypegov Dec 06 '12 at 11:00
  • Yes, in general the results are pretty good. But I have two make two important side notes:

    A) Some of the queries have zero results because we simply don't have that kind of content. A good example are queries for vacancies, which we don't post on the website. We could add some content around this (a page stating we don't have/post vacancies), but it's no false negative.

    B) Some of the queries are really generic in nature (just a single word) and although content is returned it's really not clear what the search is looking for based on the query. It's too ambiguous.

     –  Dec 06 '12 at 11:04
  • That looks strange, 300 pages are pretty much of content. It seems like you have very good navigation or your users are really segmented and visit only certain sections of the site. So, I suggest to investigate this further before removing the search. – alexeypegov Dec 06 '12 at 11:09
  • You are correct on both points: we know the segmentation or our visitors pretty well and structured the navigation accordingly. These 300 pages of content are divided in three main categories (which corresponds with the segments of the visitors) and we made them very accessible. –  Dec 06 '12 at 11:20
  • 1
    You may, unfortunately, be at the point of "take it out and see what happens." With such good metrics, and a proven navigation design, I'm assuming that you have good source control practices, so removing (or hiding) it should be readily "undoable." – Wonko the Sane Dec 06 '12 at 14:08
  • Yes, we have good source control. But how what I measure the success or failure of such exercise? What should I see in the metrics? –  Dec 06 '12 at 14:17
  • related if not duplicate. – zzzzBov Dec 06 '12 at 15:54
  • @zzzzBov: I think the main difference is that the post your refer to talks about search functionality in general, while I talk about search in this specific situation (based on our metrics and usage). –  Dec 06 '12 at 15:58
  • 1
    Here’s a thought: what happens if you remove the navigation instead of the search? Though not an entirely serious suggestion, this would be an interesting UX experiment (provided the search is good). In fact, web search engines essentially operate that way (particularly compared to the previous ubiquitous web directories which have all but vanished). GitHub now also provides an (optional) search-only interface; smartphone interfaces lean the same way; and I believe that in the long run this kind of interface is the way forward. – Konrad Rudolph Dec 06 '12 at 21:30
  • 1
    How many of those 80,000 view more than 1-2 pages of content? Is it possible an external linking strategy is more appealing than the content itself? Is it possible the search engine stinks? You mention clutter. Is the search field itself hard to find? – Erik Reppen Dec 07 '12 at 03:31
  • @KonradRudolph: it's an interesting approach for sure, but I think the problem with that would be that you would be unable to guide users who don't really know what they are looking for and/or don't know how to ask the right question. Also search engines have to do it this way, because the web (or whatever their scope is) is too big for a structured navigation. See big link directories for example, it can take quite a long time before you find what you're actually looking for. –  Dec 07 '12 at 09:22
  • @ErikReppen: excellent question! 78% of those 80,000 visits have a visit depth of 1 or 2 pages. 22% have a visit depth of more than 2 pages. This is OK for us: it's a corporate website with a lot of targeted content, people are able to figure out what to do next in just 2 pages. There's no need for viewing 10 pages. Based on 2 pages people are able to decide whether to contact the client or not.

    Regarding your other points: the search engine doesn't stink (see my comment above) and the navigation isn't terribly cluttered (search is easy to find) but I just want to optimize where possible.

     –  Dec 07 '12 at 09:27
  • Are many of the site visits coming from well-known, public search engines? Via, for instance the referer... Are people searching your site, but indirectly? Also, I would be highly inclined to tailor the search results page to indicate the quality of the search parameters in the results, per your update statistics (ambiguous query -- is there any additional information that can be added to help find what they are looking for, and purposefully unpublished information clearly identified, and perhaps why.. even if simply 'privacy', and who to contact if they need that information). – JustinC Dec 08 '12 at 05:14
  • Stating that you don't post vacancies would spare users from trying to find that and ending up not knowing if you don't post them or simply don't have a well-organized site. – Danny Varod Dec 10 '12 at 10:59
  • @DannyVarod: yes indeed. It's already on my todo list :) –  Dec 10 '12 at 12:30

8 Answers8

24

Taking all the nuances into an account I still think that you should not remove the search functionality, but make search field smaller instead (or change it somehow so it still be functional but within a lesser space), so visitors who would like to use it will still be able to do it.

An example:

enter image description here

alexeypegov
  • 5,395
  • 1
  • 20
  • 22
  • Thank you, I'll consider that. We need to overlap the navigation items to do that however. But that shouldn't be a big problem. –  Dec 06 '12 at 11:49
  • 2
    Good suggestion, but oh I hate that feature in Safari Mobile (in iOS 5). Tap "New page" and just when you're about to click the url address field, the Google search field expands and you tap in that field instead. The search field here on UX.SE is expandable too, and it is not good. Enter the field and everything looks ok, but once you start writing in that field, your text slides to the left and you have to re-locate the text you've written before you can continue the writing. On top of that, all navigation items disappears from the header section. (And there is no search button) – Jørn E. Angeltveit Dec 06 '12 at 11:55
  • 1
    @JørnE.Angeltveit it's only a suggestion, I believe there are many ways of doing that, like leaving the Search icon only and showing a textfield somewhere else. I think it's actually depends on the design and other factors, so main idea is to keep the search but modify it the way it will occupy less space. – alexeypegov Dec 06 '12 at 11:58
  • Yup. The feature you suggest is not the important part of your answer, it's the restraint to remove the search field! – Jørn E. Angeltveit Dec 06 '12 at 12:01
  • 2
    @JørnE.Angeltveit but removing search field is not the same as removing search functionality completely as it was asked. Still, this suggestion is just a one variant of many, and personally I prefer to have textfield always visible. – alexeypegov Dec 06 '12 at 12:03
  • I can't recall where I saw just this solution, but it worked great. the moment the search box got focus, it stretched over its companions to the navigation bar. This is quite reasonable, since the user has just stated his intentions to search instead of navigation through links. Of course, it shrinks back to original if the user regrets before searching. – Dvir Adler Dec 06 '12 at 12:08
  • @AlexeyPegov. Sorry about the wording. I meant the functionality, not the the field. The important point is not to remove the *search functionality*. – Jørn E. Angeltveit Dec 06 '12 at 12:25
  • @Dvir Adler at dev.android.com this solution can be seen. – Angelo.Hannes Dec 06 '12 at 12:32
  • 1
    @DvirAdler, Yes the suggestion about stretching/shrinking is good, but it must be implemented properly. Even the search-king, Google takes this feature all the way. If you start entering text at google.com, you get redirected to a whole other page. Which makes it funny when they have not removed old functionality. Exercise of today: Goto google.com and use the "I feel lucky" button ;-) – Jørn E. Angeltveit Dec 06 '12 at 12:32
  • @Angelo.Hannes: Good example! – Jørn E. Angeltveit Dec 06 '12 at 12:33
  • Agreed with this approach. The risk is that that 1% represents a much larger proportion of people who are actually deeply interested in the content on the site. You don't want to lose those. – Erik Reppen Dec 07 '12 at 03:37
  • Matriculate the search to a full page, and replace the label and field in the navigation component with a plain old link/anchor. I would imagine that if it is like many other site's search feature, the full page search results present an opportunity to modify the ad-hoc query above the results for the use-case of needing to refine the search (expand or narrow results), so you might already have that page anyway. I think going the route of the plain-old link makes the navigation more consistent and the search feature an actual full-featured search anyway. – JustinC Dec 08 '12 at 05:26
  • Though when looking for the search in an unknown website, you would be looking for a white box, and not a link, because 99% of search mechanisms are accessed this way. – Dvir Adler Dec 09 '12 at 05:57
  • @ Jørn E. Angeltveit, I guess no one is feeling lucky :) – Dvir Adler Dec 09 '12 at 06:00
  • Try to search this stack exchange site! The moment you type, the box expands. Personally, I would make it expand the moment focus lands on it. And to this it was under our noses all along... – Dvir Adler Dec 09 '12 at 06:25
23

Now considering these two things: the low percentage of searches per visit and the queries being used I lean to the idea removing the search functionality altogether to un-clutter the navigation bar (the search function takes up 25% of the navigation width).

My question: is this reasoning sane? Or am I overlooking something?

The Search feature doesn't need to be included on every website but if a few users need quick access to a document/page they have the option to search. The search feature comes in handy as websites grow and documents/pages don't fit into the navigation structure.

The size of the search field can also be reduced if it's visually distracting. PatternTap offers many pattern examples you can use as reference to re-styling the search field.

Ecomangination has a good example using limited space for their search field. Using a magnifying glass to represent search when a user clicks the icon it expands to show users the search input field.

Ecomangination search field

Ecomangination Search Example

Courtney Jordan
  • 1,803
  • 1
  • 15
  • 27
  • Thank you very much. Although similar to @Alexey Pegov's solution I agree that limiting the size it takes up is definitely an option. And you make an excellent point: "The search feature comes in handy as websites grow and documents/pages don't fit into the navigation structure.". So, to future-proof the website it could still be useful. –  Dec 06 '12 at 16:02
  • @wanscherpenseel: In reference to Alexey's Pegov's answer I wanted to show there are other methods in condensing your search field. As for which method you choose I highly recommend looking at patterns to find a look that best fits your needs. O'Reilly Media also offers a good book on "Search Patterns" if you'd like to explore a little further. – Courtney Jordan Dec 09 '12 at 13:54
5

How splendid it is to make decisions with such hard figures!

Note that the 1.39% percent looks scant, but it means you are running the risk of hurting more than a 1,000 users.

Is reducing the clutter of the navigation bar worth it? No one can tell without seeing your navigation bar...

Dvir Adler
  • 5,008
  • 2
  • 28
  • 44
  • 1
    Thank you for your input. The point is that I'm not sure if it will really hurt users, or not. Considering that the navigation is good and search queries don't really show that people are looking for hard-to-find content. –  Dec 06 '12 at 13:09
  • 2
    @vvanscherpenseel The majority of users currently using the search would likely disagree that navigation is good. There are a few sites that I go to that if they removed their search bar, I would find the site almost intolerable. There is so much information, and I usually want something specific, that it is very hard to find it through the provided navigation menus. Search is sometimes vital. Removing it entirely would be a great impedance to any user the uses it. – Daniel Dec 06 '12 at 15:47
  • @DanielCook Thank you for your reply. You are right that generally it would be a bad idea. But judging based on our metrics and actual usage (queries) it might be different. –  Dec 06 '12 at 16:01
  • 1
    The low search rates strongly implies that you have a great navigating system. Still, there are some with a taste for search, and you can only guess their reason. They could have little trust in navigation, they might be overwhelmed by all the options available, or it could be the opposite- they know exactly what they want, but don't remember the path that leads to it. In any case, the usable navigating system is great for almost every one, but leaving the option for those who prefer search makes your site even more usable! – Dvir Adler Dec 09 '12 at 05:51
4

Contrary to most answers I think the bar should be removed, looking to your numbers, it appears the bar is working properly but isn't helping the user get to their goal.

The users using the search field fall in two categories:

  1. Users who could not find what they want in the navigation, and thus may search to broadly, and ends up with 0 results.
  2. Advanced users who prefer to type, and ends up in the same pages of the navigation

The type of users being harmed (group 1: +-0.695%) probably wouldn't find the info anyway...

You could try a new approach, maybe try to replace the search field with a link to "All Categories" listing a bunch of tags (a paging being tagged by several keywords). Just one idea, but you can explore other ways for easing the users site navigation.

RMalke
  • 348
  • 3
  • 17
  • Really good answer! As I also mention above: the typical user doesn't need a lot of pageviews to find the content. The 300 pages are grouped in different segments and users can usually find what they need with just 2 pages (also important: a lot of our traffic comes from search engines and thus often ends up on the right page already). So combining that fact with your answer it should be safe to remove the search functionality. –  Dec 07 '12 at 09:34
2

At the risk of offending the search gods of UX, perhaps if the usage is so low it can be removed from the focus of the navigation (if the other suggestions of reducing footprint aren't acceptable) and could be placed in the footer where somebody might expect a site navigation. It may be non-standard but would prevent the frustration of not having search available.

Shash
  • 389
  • 1
  • 9
  • Similar to other proposals (make the search less obvious), but an interesting idea for sure. –  Dec 07 '12 at 09:30
1

Having 300 pages or so on your site seems like you must have a hierarchical navigation. Meaning 3 main area, with some sections, under which maybe are topics and then the final pages.

One scenario, that would speak for keeping the search would be the length or navigation paths. If the search is used by users to shorten the amount of pages to get to their destination, then it could make sense to keep the search. Whereas a scenario where most people searching end up on rather top-level pages the navigation path does not get shorted.

Hypothetically, let's assume an user wants to get to a page via the navigation like so:

index > main area a > section 1 > topic 5 > page C

That makes four steps, but via the search this could be:

index > search results > page C

and thus shortening the navigation path by two.

However, if users usually search for "section x" or even "main area x" type of elements high up in the hierachy, the search does not shorten their path to content, and thus taking it away does not complicate their usage.

kontur
  • 7,644
  • 3
  • 25
  • 50
1

I would suggest you keep the search function. It gives people the trust that they can rely on a second method for navigation, if their first search through regular navigation does not work.

The fact that people do not use the search so often, probably proves that your main navigation is very clear to most people. But still, people will want to search if they can not immediately find what they are looking for.

I have a webshop and I had my searchbox removed, because on this particular webshop, I had only a small amount of products an I felt that a searchbox was no longer required.

I experienced about 5% less sales because of this...so I have re-instated the search box.

Good luck with your site!

kontur
  • 7,644
  • 3
  • 25
  • 50
LvS
  • 469
  • 2
  • 6
  • Really good point about the psychological assurance the existance of a search box provides. Also +1 for mentioning a real drop in sales figures. – kontur Dec 07 '12 at 11:50
0

Please do not practice utilitarianism in web design if you can avoid it. You can please everyone most of the time.

I upvoted Alexey's answer but can't comment on it to show a few popular sites that use this:

http://developer.android.com/sdk/index.html

http://techcrunch.com/

http://css-tricks.com/

I absolutely adore that feature. It's very usable, saves space, and let's face it: it's dead sexy.

William
  • 249
  • 1
  • 6
  • 1
    I disagree. You can't make everyone happy at the same time. You need to make sacrifices for the common good (or for the segment that's most interesting to you). Also in the TC example I really had to look hard before I could find the search bar. Never saw it before although I visit TC almost daily! –  Dec 07 '12 at 09:31
  • Good examples, maybe you should have put them in @Alexey's answer's comments rather than post your own answer to provide the example links. – kontur Dec 07 '12 at 10:15
  • kontur, please refer to line 2 of my answer. I don't have enough rep to comment on an answer. If you downvoted my answer for this, shame on you. – William Dec 07 '12 at 13:52
  • wanscherpenseel - I'd argue that you not seeing it completely justifies its design. It's not in the way of your normal browsing experience, but it's a feature I personally know about and use when I'm looking for an article I read last month. You can make everyone happy, it's just not always easy to find how. – William Dec 07 '12 at 13:54
  • wanshcerpenseel - Hopefully you didn't find my answer too prescriptive. Honestly, I was just trying to make this a comment to an answer to show you examples of what Alexey contributed as an answer you basically agreed with. – William Dec 07 '12 at 14:02