Relevance is also a very technical terms, and I have lately started using “Best Match” as more user-friendly label for result sorting etc. How do you feel about that?

I haven’t got any tools for testing etc. to share, unfortunately. I mostly do informal user testing with paper prototypes. And I guess you’re already familiar with the writings of Lee Romero and Louis Rosenfeld on site search analytics. Other readers may want to check out these great search log analytics resources:

• http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/searchanalytics/blog/site_search_analytics_workshop/
• http://www.earley.com/download.asp?file=Earley_Search_Experience-SIX_Metrics.pdf-metrics/
• http://blog.leeromero.org/2009/01/20/search-analytics-basic
• http://blog.leeromero.org/2009/01/23/search-analytics-advanced-metrics/
• http://blog.leeromero.org/2009/01/26/search-analytics-search-results-usage/

I know the solution at regjeringen.no fairly well and the navigation is made from a topic map and it shows

Being a technologist I find it fun that search is all about user experience, and not so much about the engine which drives it. A fact often forgotten when a company purchase a specific solution from a vendor.

The problem with the word “accessibility” is that it’s widely used on the Net for screen readers and other aides for vision-impaired users.

I think that “relevance” is also a loaded and complex term, but at least it’s *our* term, instantly recognizable as search related.

Looking forward to more,

Avi

First of all I would avoid the mistake of forcing facets into a hierarchy if they’re not hierarchical “by nature”. Hierarchies are best applied when they express a clear is-a relationship between the levels, like in the product group / department navigation on Amazon. If selecting multiple values at each level of the hierarchy, separate into several flat lists.

Secondly, I personally have a dislike towards dynamical expand/collapse javascript trees. Sure, it reminds us of the Explorer interface for browsing Windows file systems, but for the most I think this kind of interaction is unnecessarily complicated. I prefer hierarchical facets where one level is selected at a time.

Some organizations may have established a very complex topic hierarchy that they want to use for faceted navigation. If this hierarchy is either too deep and/or too wide, it’s easy for the user to get lost, or to feel overwhelmed by the number of options. If that’s the case, I would try to persuade the organization to simplify the hierarchy they choose to expose to the users. If you understand Norwegian, have a look at the slightly overwhelming “Tema” site search navigation on http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/sok.html?quicksearch=EU

Another problem with topical hierarchical facets is that the facet values tend to be either too general or too specific, providing the user with little information scent. It that’s not the case, you may still have a problem with the facet value language not matching the users’ mental models.

In short, I prefer to keep it simple. I generally recommend flat lists, unless there’s a clear meaning to the hierarchy. In the latter case I prefer to avoid expandable/collapsible trees.

Perhaps you want to read more about designing for faceted search and backwards highlighting.

Cheers!

With e-commerce it’s easier to see it used, especially for product group navigation.