One of the biggest changes to homepages across the web, particularly with big brands, is the seemingly mandatory inclusion of the multiheader. Multiheaders allows multiple stories or features access to the primary visibility section of a homepage, and let visitors choose (through a click or hover) which featured piece they want to see. Let's take a walk through a few:
Yahoo!'s multiheader allows us to acces multiple sections (Featured, Entertainment, Sports, Life) and multiple stories in each.
C|Net's offering lets users surf from one to the next using the "back" and "next" buttons, but if you stay on the homepage a few seconds, it starts cycling through automatically (which many of the multiheaders do).
CBS uses their multiheader to provide shows that will air that night. It's point-and-click, only though, and I'm guessing their stats will show that very few folks notice the top links and use them.
I'm a big fan of the way National Geographic uses theirs - it feels intuitive, and the auto-scroll time between stories is just right.
Other sites like NFL, Scientific American, Gateway, MarthaStewart and many more are also using these multiheaders for a variety of reasons. What do you think? Will this trend become the next big thing for web portals and homepages? Do you think users are doing a good job of understanding and using these tools?
p.s. To be honest, I'm head-over-heels for multiheaders. I got to watch a lot of hands-on usability tests at Stanford's web workshop and these were very well received (even by non-tech-savvy users). I think we might have to throw one on the new version of SEOmoz (if Matt says it's OK).
p.p.s. Vegas is pretty fun - and attendance is running up over 2000; Pubcon's highest ever, from my understanding.
I know there are plenty of examples out there, but I'd like to comment on the one ESPN.com has been using on their homepage for 8-10 mos (?), just below their main story on the lefthand side of the page.
What's nice about theirs is that it acts like a teaser for a couple of articles that are grouped by subject matter, rather than just a one-off piece. There's an auto rotate, but the user has the option to select the category he/she is most interested in through the nav at the top. Similar to Yahoo's I suppose, but the "featured" section is not highlighted by default.
What's not nice is that the "open link in new window" doesn't work in either IE6 or Firefox, so if you're interested in multiple articles, you can't open them all at once & you still have to use your back button.
From an SEO perspective, how does one code the text within these to be Search Engine Friendly (and user-friendly)--i.e. more like a static link)?
Hey David you're right... ESPN has made quite a big use of the layered / tabbed content. However I'm wondering about the stats on that.
People with tabbed content / layered content / multiheaders -- Please post your visitor clickthrough stats on those!
Well, if you think of a site's home page or even header as a kind of "billboard" for the site, then the evolution makes perfect sense... just like billboards moved from static, to action to attract attention on the billboard, to billboards that maximized space (and revenue) by delivering multiple messages in the same spot through some form of rotation.
But like most things dealing with sites, they are neither good nor bad, just good and bad implementation... do they serve a purpose, are they intuitive, do they deliver the message appropriately or was it one more way to cram 3 times as much stuff in to an already crowded space.
I think the title of this post is misleading though - a multiheader is not a trend, it is a feature that has existed for years and will continue to exist. Some people use it and some don't. Those who use it - some use it well and some use it poorly. But it's not a trend like coloured scroll bars or iframes.
I absolutely love multiheaders.
They are a great tool when you are optimizing a highly branded company's website, just push the brand messaging and some of the highly compelling marketing messaging into a tabbed image header and say the H1 for your core keywords.
Multiheaders also work really well for featuring seasonal and high margin products or services and for funneling your homepage traffic. Take a look at Lenovo's multiheader, I've used this approach recently for a technology company with great success. They have been able to feature new products and to segment traffic by using 4 tabs - three for verticals and one for a feature, all without cluttering the homepage.
Multiheaders really let you have your cake and eat it too.
It really depends on what you have to say. The love/hate argument over the presentation of information doesn't really matter if the information is bunk. A lemon is a lemon no matter how you slice it. Multiheaders are the antithesis of most Web 2.0 sites where bold single statements are made (which I prefer), but the 2.0 sites usually only need to say one thing. That's why they work well for news based info.
Before people started to use CSS / XHTML and Ajax, multiheaders weren't very common. So I'd say they rolled in with Web 2.0.
Does anyone have usability data on these in addition to "I got to watch a lot of hands-on usability tests at Stanford's web workshop and these were very well received (even by non-tech-savvy users)."?
Intel have just such a thing going on their website...
Your point regarding the usability benefits of the Yahoo Multiheader is an excellent one. I too will be looking to roll out similar concepts on future projects, especially for sites which either attract a variery of demographics (each tab targetted to a specific interest) or those with wide ranging topics which appeal to different audience bases.
Notice how the links in the multiheaders are activated by a user CLICKING (not mousing over)? Works nicely, doesn't it?
Notice how the links in the multiheaders are simple and small (some of which aren't even underlined), yet they're still very obvious and usable?
Where was this post a few days ago? :(
Don't like them.
1) Most are hard to track what level of engagement the user had with the content.
2) They remind me of the drop down menu in that they hide content from the user. User's shouldn't be forced to have to wait or discover what your main content is. It should be scannable upon their landing.
Good point. For those users who like to know what they get straight away (and there are a lot of those).
I like the system in theory, but it is kinda annoying not knowing what's inside immediately.
I think it's wonderful, it a great way to get new and updated content
I like them from both a personal standpoint and for SEO purposes.
What better way to unclutter a homepage than to break the content up into easy to navigate chunks. Done right, it can be great for SEO also, allowing more on page content where space is limited. I look at it as a way to mix SEO and user experience.
I quite like them, but can imagine them being spammed just like everything else :(
I like these too . . . as long as they're nested into an already content-rich homepage.
I got all upset when I first saw Netflix's super-refined homepage (before you've logged in), thinking that all our smaller clients would want that same monolithic look not understanding the need for more content and navigation on the homepage.
Great post Rand!
I really like these and I was thinking that if you had several related sites, such as 5 different travel sites related to different countries, you could use multiheaders almost as an advertisement for your other sites.
I think this trend will continue, but mostly because information on popular sites changes so quickly, it's a great way to semi-archive the content.
This is also one of the first changes to home page design that encourages the usage of large pictures to tell a story, rather than focusing strictly on more written content.
Have fun at pupcon!
Pupcon? Sounds adorable!
Purely as a user, I generally don't like them. At least not the auto-rotating ones. Yahoo's are ok, but that's because they don't rotate. The rotating ones always seem like an odd combination of too fast and too slow at the same time. Too slow in that they prevent me from seeing all the info at once. Too fast in that they always seem to rotate before I'm done reading the current one.
I never called it multiheaders, but tabbed homepage browsing. Either way, it is absolutely essential for most sites - however they must have at least the following features: - Some areas where you can click for more info - Intuitive in design, non invasive but not too discreet - Easy to navigate, smooth in transition - Limit to 6 .. anymore is overboard - Worthy of being there - not just "stuff you threw in" - Not be-all / end-all of your site (if something has to be seen by all of your viewers and it's number 4 in your multiheader, not the best strategy) - Shouldn't automatically move too fast from one to the next (delayed transition is good)
This concept has been used for years but now especially with Flash and Ajax it is becoming more popular. I would love to see some stats on how far users go, and what the clickthrough rates are for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th tabs in a multiheader.
I made a mistake. It's not absolutely essential for most sites. It would be more accurate to say it's very useful for many sites.
Personally, I'm all for multiheaders. As far as I'm concerned, it's a logical progression for navigation.
My concern however, is that it'll become badly used and as such garner a negative reputation; ie a site replacing navigation with it completely.
As long as people don't try and over-use them (by having more than 5, maybe 6 panels), I think we could well see these in 75% of sites within the next 12-18 months. Done right, they just work.