I use a basic tree hierarchy when it makes sense to do so. Otherwise, I tend to have a rather flat system involving classes of information, where one “atom” of content can potentially exist in multiple categories. My current project however, is a booking engine, so it’s rather linear in nature.

I tend to use a browse and search methodology to allow users to get to the content they want. Browsing allows for serendipity, where a direct search allows for accuracy and speed.

I rarely start by thinking of hierarchy. I think of user tasks, content models and metadata first (most of the time) and then try to come up with a structure that supports those. As an artifact, site maps tend to appear hierarchical, but the organization of information within the site isn’t often strictly broader –> narrower. Like design, good IA work supports business/organization goals… that’s the structure I look for.

Good question. I think it depends on the project, and the goals therein, but more and more I’m thinking “bottom-up.” Kind of. Site maps tend to be tricky, and may appear to be hirarchical, when the organization isn’t really.

I actually explored this a bit, a while back.

Hi,
I was trained to do it hierarchically. However, I find that users do get lost despite the navigational tools I offer them. Right now, I am experimenting with “Scratch-The-Itch-As-Fast-As-Possible” paradigm for websites; that is, satisfy immediately the user that comes to the website with a specific goal in mind and wants to get out as fast as possible (especially those on dialups). They might leave fast (once itch is satisfied) but they’ll be back for more.

I really must post my long drafted posts on this topic..

Anyway I’m a task first kinda guy, letting the structure build around the lower level items. The problems come when you try and force a hierarchy where one shouldn’t exist, something I constantly fight against as I like to offer it if I can (as Mhac says, users are used to using that system).

With the exception of small websites, usually there are more than one navigation system / route. So, potentially, there are multiple structures (trees and/or graphs) represented in a site map.

But, it’s usual to visually represent the principle navigation as a hierarchical tree–even if it’s not 100% strictly a tree.

The site architecture (site map) diagram has a bunch of purposes that help site creators understand how the site is going to work and how it is going to be built. And, frequently, the tree structure corresponds with categorical changes in the visual layout (e.g., changes in the state of the navigation menus, changes in the page color, etc.).

So, in other words, it’s not necessarilly literally true that the home page is the top of the information tree as much as it’s a way to point out that the home page is (visually) different than all the other pages on the site.

All that said, sometimes for enterprises that have “too much hierarchy”, I’ll layout the sidemap sideways or with the homepage at the bottom to trip up the cultural assumption that what’s at the top of the diagram is somehow equivalent of the CEO or president!

Also, I always start out by making a flat list–and I have folks who are suggesting features for the site always submit them as a flat list, not as an outline. I find it is essential leave out the hierarchy as long as possible, because the tree structure limits possible combinations that are useful to explore during the design.

I’ll answer the last part about why we do it that way. We create hierarchies because it is a very natural approach for the way our brains are organised. We percieve the world around us hierarchically – we see leaves that are on branches that are on trees that are in a forest that are in a locality etc. We see an iris that is in an eye that is in a face that belongs to a body which is standing in an environment.

Our cortex works like this – little details are passed up the cortical layers and aggregated into a higher level at every layer of the cortex.

So we do hierarchies because they suit our brains and our language and our categorisation abilities and because it is just the way we are. It isn’t about library science or education or the way we have organised sites in the past.

Sure there are other ways to organise some information on websites, but hierarchies are inherent to us.

I completely agree with donnam’s opinion and I couldn’t say it any better. When browsing through sites I find myself much easier to find what I’m looking for if they are hierarchical and when I am designing I make my sites hierarchical too.