Simplifying The Guardian’s header

The Guardian is an excellent newspaper, but the design of the online version could be improved in several ways, starting with the header.

I’ve had a stab at redesiging The Guardian‘s home page before. I thought I’d take a different tack this time by concentrating on one part of the page: the header.

What’s wrong with the header?

Current Guardian header: confused, busy, difficult

The current header: too many competing navigation elements

If we accept that simplifying design equates to reducing the choices available to the user to a few core, meaningful options, then the header fails because:

  • There are 3 navigation elements: two horizontal link lists and a drop down list
  • There are 25 links within the 2 link lists and a further 70 (yes, 70!) in the drop down list
  • There are 9 different link colours used in the link lists
  • The header contains information about the weather, a prize The Guardian has won, the date, the time of the last page update, a graphical link to the RSS feed, text resizing widgets and registration and login links
  • The search box offers 2 search options: The Guardian and the web, resulting in another drop down list

Summary: too many options, probably because the designers felt everything must be accessible within one click from the home page.

Improving the header

  • Use 1 link list
  • Reduce the number of links to a handful of top-level categories. Use the structure of the print version  as a guide, as it’s simple and most newspaper readers will be familiar with it.  Readers can navigate to their target by clicking on one of section links, just as they would turn to a particular section of the paper in order to find a story
  • Use one colour to indicate links
  • Use the header for one purpose only: navigation
  • Use the search box to search the Guardian. Try this obscure site for searching ‘the web’

My version

My version of The Guardian's header: simpler and easier

My version: just 7 links and 1 search bar. '.co.uk' removed from the name.

My version of The Guardian website’s header

No frills, just a simplification of the header’s purpose. I’ve used titles to further guide readers through the navigation — a simple technique, but one that is really helpful and easy to implement.

I’ve also dropped the .co.uk from the masthead as it only serves to devalue the online brand (i.e. it suggests that readers haven’t encountered the ‘real’, proper Guardian).

Before and after

Current Guardian header: confused, busy, difficult

Compare the headers. Which provides the simpler navigation?

My version of The Guardian's header: simpler and easier

My version: unadorned!

Filed under: Articles, Favourite

Tags: , , , ,

Next post:

← Previous post:

Comments

  1. Eftu says:

    Being simple doesn’t mean minimal. Your simplification, however very debatable. Guardian is a news website, not a personal weblog. I think their site is the most minimal news sites compare to others. But, nice try though.

  2. Leon says:

    Hi Eftu,

    I think my version offers a better way of navigating through the site than the current version. Regardless of what type of site you're navigating, having a choice of nearly 100 links in the header is not a good thing.

    I don't see why newspapers need to offer a “search this paper” and a “search the whole internet” choice: I doubt anyone uses the “search the web” option; they'll go to google instead.

    Text resizing widgets are naff, full stop. You might as well put a sign above the site saying “Warning — tiny text here!”

    I guess my version looks a bit basic…

    I think all newspapers are beginning to look the same online — I don't think The Guardian is particularly minimal compared to the others. They all seem to be scared of not linking directly to content on their front pages, which creates a very busy look.

    Ta,

    Leon

  3. John Baker says:

    Looks good to me. If the Guardian site took up your suggestion I’d go there more often.

  4. Leon says:

    Thanks John – interesting use of one of my themes; you’ve improved the look a lot since I last looked.

    Garamond italic too. Very nice!

  5. Shane says:

    Hey there Leon – interesting post. I totally agree with your ‘Search the Web’ option. And so does Jakob Nielsen in his book ‘Prioritizing Web Usability’.

    Posts such as these promote debate – my rather humble opinion is that your header is over-simplified. You do not explain where you’d put Accessibility options, sign-in/registration links. I disagree about the text resizing shouting ‘Warning – Tiny text here’. I don’t think the text is too small, but I’m sure many people do. Isn’t it a good idea to make it as easy as possible for those people to change the font size?

    Also, you mention that you’d remove the award text. Would you not be proud if your website had won an award? Would you not be forgiven for displaying it in a fairly unobtrusive way in the header area?

    I think Times Online has a better judged header.

  6. Leon says:

    Hi Shane,

    Thanks for replying. I’ll go through what you’ve said:

    - I’d put login/resister options wherever they’re required; for example, if you needed to login to respond to a blog post, I’d direct you to a login screen. How many users need to login to The Guardian? I would imagine it’s not enough to warrant putting a link at the top of every page.

    - Text shouldn’t need resizing, so ‘resize text’ widgets are a sign of bad design: designers should respect the reader’s choice of font size.

    - I don’t think it matters what The Guardian thinks of the prizes it has won — what’s more important is whether that information is important to the user. I suspect it isn’t, unless the prize is newsworthy (again, I doubt many people click on this link: I clicked on it for the first time because I was writing about it). A better idea would be to put this information in the footer, with a link to the nature of the prize. (At least The Guardian does link to the awarding body.)

    As for The Times, I’d agree that it’s marginally less cluttered. I really like the teaser placed top right. Again, I think there are issues with the number of choices available to the user, and the search box isn’t prominent enough.

    Newspapers seem to share design problems, which spring from a fear that readers won’t bother clicking through to content, that they need to have direct links to everything on the front page. Have you noticed how long these pages all are? Does anyone bother reading through to the footer?

    As a result of this some bad conventions have arisen, which are hidden by the fact that critics like the tight grids that papers like The Guardian and The Times use online — but that’s another article!

    Apologies for waffling,

    — Leon

  7. Shane says:

    Fair point regarding the login – I still see it as being quite unobtrusive, like the award text.

    I don’t agree that text shouldn’t need resizing – there are lots of people who have sight issues who may need to enlarge the size of text. Starting out with very small text as a default is not a good idea – you need to cater for as large an audience as possible, but you can’t say that one size fits all, as it were.

    I often resize text in pages (using browser text resizing) to see if the design ‘breaks’. I find that if text is resized, it will often overlap, rendering the design useless.

    Now I’m waffling ;)

  8. Leon says:

    Waffle away!

    I’m saying that font sizes should be set to a relative unit (font-size: 100% in order to accommodate IE). By doing that, the page will respect whatever the user has set as their default font size. If a user has a sight issue, then their setting is respected. If the default setting hasn’t been changed by the user, you’ll get a base font size of 16 pixels: big and readable.

    If you set the default font size to 100% then you won’t need a text resizing widget.

    The Guardian, and other papers, throw so much content on to their home page that they have to use small font sizes for lots of text. As a compromise The Guardian places the resizing widget in the header — but that’s admitting that you’re likely to find cramped text on the page. You’ll also note that enlarging text by 2 clicks and beyond borks the layout.

    (Try resizing this site ;) )

  9. Leon says:

    Edit: The Guardian page resizes pretty well. There are only a few minor problems.

  10. Jay Vincent says:

    That’s crazy!

    Your version completely ignores so many of the excellent features the guardian site employs to make their site accessible, usable and easily-navigated through. And there is soooo much content on the guardian site, your version would require more clicks from the user to get to the relevant pages/articles.

    Pretty much everything you’ve done is worse. The design and development of the guardian was a multi-million pound job given to one of the top media agencies in the world, so much thought and planning went into the header and site structure. I don’t think you should try and ‘improve’ on that.

  11. Leon says:

    Hi Jay,

    More money doesn’t necessarily make it better.

    How is my version ‘worse’?

    Ta,

    Leon

  12. Leon says:

    your version would require more clicks from the user to get to the relevant pages/articles

    Yes, it would. The challenge is to make the path to that content as clear as possible; that’s why I’ve used the print version of the paper as a basis for the site structure: it’s logical and (Guardian) readers will be familiar with it.

    The alternative is to place 50+ links on the page and hope that the reader is willing to scan for content.

  13. Karen says:

    I certainly agree with the general direction you’ve gone down, if not all the details.

    I don’t know if this is still true but it certainly used to be the case that a really significant chunk of the readers of the Guardian website weren’t readers of the newspaper and never had been…so G2 could be a bit tricky as an option.

    What’s your thinking for keeping business as a top-level option? If we’re radically simplifying then why doesn’t that go under news too? Why’s business special?

  14. Leon says:

    Thanks for your comment. G2′s difficult, although most broadsheet newspapers have some kind of magazine insert or section. I guess it could be given a more generic label (erm, Magazine, perhaps?) or the content could be shifted to other sections; mainly to Comment (which could perhaps be renamed Comment and analysis or Comment and reviews to make it a bit more inclusive).

    Similarly, most newspapers — even red tops — have some sort of Business section which serves a purpose beyond reporting business news; it may list prices or provide advice, so I think a discrete section is justifiable.

    I wonder how often a newspaper’s navigation menu is actually used? And what about stories that could be placed in more than one category?

  15. Karen says:

    I remembering working through a whole load of browsing scenarios when we were doing one of the BBC navigation redesigns and kept coming back to the conclusion “these person really should have just searched for this”.

    Now admittedly there are people who have reasons/needs to browse rather than search but I do think we’re all still a bit hung up on trying to provide a comprehensive, fair top-level navigation that can be used to find *all* content. That route usually results in either nav bloat or cryptic nav. Either way, underused nav.

    I think we need to get better at using this space on websites to just provide a solution to key browsing scenarios and use other tools (search, homepage space, cross-content navigation) to support others.

    (still not sure about business though ;-)

  16. Leon says:

    OK, let’s get rid of Business and G2 so we only have five top level nav options (you can see where this is going …)

    I agree about designing for browsing scenarios: categorising content is perhaps more useful to site designers than visitors.

    I’m guessing the main scenarios are:

    · visitor has clicked on a link to a story and reads away
    · visitor has come via a search engine — it’s probably the right page but they may need some help finding the exact page they need
    · visitor knows the story is on the site and enters a search term (requires a really good site search engine)
    · visitor is interested in a subject and enters a search term (ditto)
    · visitor just wants to browse the news (requires a well laid out home page)
    · visitor wants to read stuff from a particular section (football, for example); top level nav is important

    So having a really good search engine and providing relevant contextual links is perhaps the most important thing (or just making sure inline links are relevant and well labelled). I like the idea of categorising content around stories rather than newspaper sections.

  1. [...] here: newspapers should look to reduce the amount of content they place on their front pages (I’ve discussed this in relation to The Guardian).  In a sense, the use of a grid is exacerbating the fundamental [...]

  2. [...] All nonsense, of course, and the design should be saluted for breaking from the current convention for super-complex grids, content-overload and headers stuffed with 75 links. [...]

  3. [...] here: newspapers should look to reduce the amount of content they place on their front pages (I’ve discussed this in relation to The Guardian).  In a sense, the use of a grid is exacerbating the fundamental [...]

  4. [...] The Guardian’s website has a header navbar with 25 links. The print version is divided into six clear sections: news, sport, business, commentary, listings and G2. By dividing the website into a manageable [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>