↵

Fight for UX(fightforux.com)

over 7 years ago from Jackson Geller, Dev

  • Jared KrauseJared Krause, over 7 years ago (edited over 7 years ago )

    6: Stop using hamburger menus

    8 points
    • Lee FinkelLee Finkel, over 7 years ago

      Agree to disagree here.

      A hamburger menu, in this case, is a safety net for a particular subset of users. We know by analytics that the audience we're going after is comfortable with hamburger menu components.

      You'll note that the entire experience is navigable without needing the hamburger menu at all.

      Our first goal with Fight For UX is to educate and inspire. If we've done our job, and if you want to buy a print, you can feel free to do so. But we didn't want to throw it in anyone's face. Hence, the subtle hamburger menu.

      You should probably think through UI components (hamburger or otherwise) before posting knee-jerk reactions based on clickbait UX headlines.

      10 points
      • Todd SielingTodd Sieling, over 7 years ago (edited over 7 years ago )

        7: Accept feedback graciously and don't demean those who care enough to comment.

        11 points
      • Jared KrauseJared Krause, over 7 years ago (edited over 7 years ago )

        "You'll note that the entire experience is navigable without needing the hamburger menu at all."

        So, why use the hamburger menu in the first place? Just trying to understand your logic.

        1 point
      • Dan Boland, over 7 years ago

        "A hamburger menu, in this case, is a safety net for a particular subset of users. We know by analytics that the audience we're going after is comfortable with hamburger menu components."

        That's fair (I don't have strong feelings about hamburger icons in general), but I think what these folks are saying is that the experience of the site changes drastically once you open that menu. Nothing in the copy or calls to action suggest that those principles are in fact a) physical products that you could b) purchase on the site. I thought it was a fun one-pager.

        I definitely think there are some missed opportunities here; it's a little too clever. But the visual design is beautiful and the products are compelling.

        4 points
      • Casey BrittCasey Britt, over 7 years ago

        While I think the hamburger could be implemented better, ignore all the haters. The hamburger is becoming an icon for navigation and it's just trendy to hate on the hamburger in designer circles. They can fight it all they want but the hamburger is here to stay.

        4 points
        • Jared KrauseJared Krause, over 7 years ago (edited over 7 years ago )

          We don't hate because it's "trendy to hate". We hate because hiding menu items behind an ambiguous hamburger icon has been proven to result in confused users, mystery navigation, lower discoverability, more required clicks, and almost 50% reduced user engagement. Hence.. terrible UX.

          Please read: https://lmjabreu.com/post/why-and-how-to-avoid-hamburger-menus/

          0 points
          • Casey BrittCasey Britt, over 7 years ago (edited over 7 years ago )

            Haters gonna hate tho.

            But in all seriousness, I'm not saying that hamburger is always okay. But sometimes it can be a good thing. The article you linked doesn't have any data to back up their claims as far as I can see. While I don't disagree with what they are saying it seems to be heavily focused on mobile apps, rather than websites. Bottom tab bars are not a great approach on mobile websites. iOS actually has a hidden button at the bottom of your screen in safari that brings up the browser chrome. This prevents you from putting a tab bar down there even if you wanted to (without some hack work around). So what does that leave you?

            I think that visible navigation is great for apps because apps are typically focused experiences. Sites however often have a hard time limiting themselves to 4-5 nav options without also including lots of subnav within those sections.

            Again, this site doesn't really need a burger. Instead I think based on target audience they chose to go with the minimal aesthetic the burger provides. I'm sure their site is performing just fine. There's also a possibility that they wanted you to scroll through the site rather than immediately click a navigation link. Blanket statements like "The hamburger is bad" are most often bad. ;)

            Also, in their linked example for sites at the bottom of the article they show a screenshot of time.com where they've removed the burger and have all the links to the site exposed. That is AWFUL! Can you imagine browsing a site like this? "As long as it’s evident as website navigation, people will still scroll past it and will definitely be immediately exposed to the available options." Or they will close your site because they're tired of scrolling 1.5 screens to get into the content they came for.

            0 points
    • Todd SielingTodd Sieling, over 7 years ago

      Totally. As soon as I saw that and then three whole items, I knew this wasn't thinking how I think about UX.

      1 point