The implications of Information Foraging Theory on designing user-centered websites have not gone unnoticed. Jakob Nielsen and Jared Spool, among others, have put forth considered recommendations on how to enhance information scent on the web. Most of their guidelines, however, tend to assume that the designer has direct control over the explicit words used in the interface. While this is certainly the case for browse-based websites dependent on site-wide navigation and hyperlinks, it breaks down for search interfaces where both content and navigation are completely dynamic.

While the principles for amplifying information scent in search-based interfaces are complimentary to those of browse-based models, they are yet distinct from them. Understanding how information scent applies to search first requires an understanding of human search behavior and the factors that affect it.

People are just like bears (only less fur)

Marcia Bates' berrypicking model

In her landmark 1989 paper, Marcia Bates outlined search as an evolutionary process. Users often begin with a general query, glean a few nuggets from the initial results, reformulate their query based on that new knowledge, and then repeat this process. Like a bear foraging for food in the forest, knowledge seekers tend to rapidly migrate from one patch of information to the next.

A Bloomberg terminal concept by IDEO

While this iterative behavior is true of virtually everyone using search, there are two key factors that distinguish some users from others: domain expertise and search expertise (though John Ferrara has identified several additional factors). Some websites, for example, may be able to assume that users are highly literate in a specific topic, while other websites may need to design for a range of expertise in a variety of subjects (the case for web search engines). In addition, users experienced at using search interfaces will be more capable of utilizing sophisticated search tools, but less experienced users will demand less complexity.

Though domain and search expertise separate some users from others, a given user may have different goals at different times. The two primary types of goals are recall and exploration. Recall involves a straightforward retrieval of a specific fact or document (for instance, “what it the population of Brazil?”), and can generally be accomplished in a short amount of time. Exploration, on the other hand, is a more subjective process. Choosing where to go on holiday, for example, is a complex question that may take hours or even days to decide.

Carrots and sticks: designing for information scent

Understanding the iterative nature of search and the contexts from which users operate is the foundation for knowing how to effectively harness information scent to improve the usability of search. Above all else, Information Foraging Theory has taught us that users need to feel as if they are always “getting warmer.” As a user searches, information scent must grow increasingly poignant, emanating a feeling of progress to the user. When information scent is strong, users are confident that they’re headed in the right direction. When it’s weak, users may be uncertain of what to next, or they may abandon their search altogether.

When information scent is strong, users are confident that they’re headed in the right direction. When it’s weak, users may be uncertain of what to next, or they may abandon their search altogether.

There are many practical methods for increasing information scent in search. Some of them bear resemblance to Nielsen and Spool’s original recommendations, but are deserving of further elaboration in the context of search interfaces. We will trace the user’s journey from the searchbox, to the list of search results, and end with query refinement using faceted navigation.

The searchbox

In order for a user to have a successful search experience, he must first locate the searchbox and successfully enter a query. These two obvious requirements lead us to our first two design recommendations.

The searchbox should look like a searchbox
Cute attempts to drastically re-style the searchbox usually end in failure. The universal language of the searchbox consists of a border, white background, and a corresponding button that says “search.” In addition to expecting the searchbox to look a certain way, users have also come to expect it in a particular location: the top right corner of the page. The further one deviates from this expected appearance and placement, the more one risks that users will not actually discover the searchbox.

Provide as-you-type query suggestions
Whether the subject is a particular Icelandic volcano or the president of Iran, users are often not sure exactly what to type in order to find what they’re looking for. A little help can go a long way in getting the user off to the right start. As-you-type query suggestions reduce spelling errors and, equally important, give users a sense of confidence that they have entered a dependable query.

Autocomplete at Globrix, eBay, and Last.fm

Search results

Assuming that the user found the searchbox and managed to enter a query, she will then be presented with a set of results matching that query. Consisting of at least a title and description, search results are typically dense with information. The challenge becomes separating the signal from the noise.

Indicate the number of results matching the query
The number of matching results has a significant impact on the user’s confidence in his query. If he sees that a large number of results have been returned, he can safely assume that his query is adequate, whereas only a handful of results may be an indicator that he may have misspelled a word or is simply searching for something that doesn’t exist.

John Ferrara on Titles

Use descriptive titles
In order for users to detect information scent in search results, the results must be digestible at a glance. Titles are usually the first recipients of the user’s attention, so it’s important that they accurately describe the content that they represent. Avoid using file names as titles, which are often cryptic and usually contain little information scent.

Highlight matching words
In addition to descriptive titles, hit highlighting is one of the most helpful cues on the search results page, making queried words immediately stand out to the user. The user can quickly evaluate the list of results by simply observing the greatest concentration of highlighted words on the page.

Make visited links discernible from unvisited links
A visual indicator of which pages have already been visited provides useful scent to the user. Whether she is trying to re-find a page she found yesterday, or trying to avoid duplicating her efforts, a visited link color is very helpful.

Yahoo's best first pattern

More detail for top results, less detail for the rest
One of Peter Pirolli‘s interesting discoveries is that users tend to prefer more verbose results in some circumstances (when there is no time constraint or when there are few results to choose from), and more concise descriptions at other times (under a deadline or when there are many results). How can these opposing cases be reconciled? An ideal compromise is the best first pattern, in which extensive metadata is presented for the top one to three results, while more concise views are provided for all of the subsequent results.

Avoid zero results
A search result page that has no results is a serious roadblock to users. It will either delay their journey, or cause them to give up completely. It’s important to do everything possible to avoid zero result pages from ever occurring. Two helpful tools are automatic spelling corrections and synonym dictionaries. If the user has obviously misspelled a word in the query that would yield zero results, it’s best to automatically correct the spelling for the user, being careful to notify the user of the modified query.

Faceted navigation

Frequency can be indicated both numerically and with horizontal bars

So the user entered a query and glanced over the first set of results. What now? If the user already found what he was looking for, then job done. But chances are he still has a long way to go. Faceted navigation is the best available tool for facilitating the evolutionary flow of search. It both helps the user understand the shape of the data, and gives him the ability to drill down to a very specific slice of the results.

Show the number of matching results for each filter
Showing result counts for filters helps users understand the overall composition of the results. They provide cues that feed into our decision-making process, influencing how we decide to further slice the data. In addition to providing a numeric count, subtle visual indicators such as horizontal bars can make the distribution of results even more immediately obvious to the user.

Use breadcrumbs to indicate the user’s query and applied filters
In addition to choosing where to go next, users need to know where they are currently and how they got there. Breadcrumbs provide this trail, and also enable users to quickly get back in the event of having taken a wrong turn. Each breadcrumb should be independently removable, while Greg Nudelman has outlined an even more forgiving breadcrumb that allows for the swapping of one filter for a related one.

An internal knowledge management application at British broadcaster ITV

Make metadata clickable
When filterable metadata is shown for a search result, that metadata should be clickable to allow for organic filtering of the results. For example, when searching a catalogue of books that presents the author alongside each result, clicking on the author’s name should cause that author to be added to the query as a filter.

Find ways to meaningfully visualize facets
Many facets lend themselves to a certain kind of presentation. Whether the facet consists of cities, prices, keywords or categories, there is probably a corresponding visualisation well suited for each, from a map to a slider to plain text. Effective visualisations are ones that make the data tangible and easy to comprehend.

2010 House of Representative Election from the New York Times, Google Stock Screener

A fairytale ending

Information scent plays a valuable role in making the digital landscape easier to traverse. By applying principles that amplify information scent, we can help facilitate a state of flow that enables users to engage in productive, frictionless, enjoyable search experiences.

With a mobile phone, you can watch movies/videos/TV programs online anywhere at almost any time. That ubiquity has brought tremendous convenience to our lives, but on the other hand, the value of them has been diminishing. We don’t very much/at all care about where we can get a clip or if we miss a drama episode. What if, however, we have a movie that can be watched only when certain conditions are met?

This concept is partly like a concept I’ve already introduced in my blog, but a little different.
OK, so you hold this device in front of you and watch a clip, but the clip can be played only if you are at a particular place. You have to BE there to see the whole movie.

For example, you can see

1. a movie’s secret story at an actual scene
2. a sequel clip to a TV commercial with how to apply for an exclusive present announced at the end
3. your favorite actress choose clothes at a boutique
4. a comedian introduce which spots you should visit in a touristy place

etc. etc.

Or you can shoot a video of yourself for your boyfriend saying “Hey, how long do you think I’ve been waiting for you? I’m going home.” so that he can see it when he finally arrives.

By limiting the geographical conditions for viewing movies this way, you might expect audiences to visit places you like.

It would be so much fun if videos can be seen in 3D from any angle (no, not from below).

Peter Morville and Jeffery Callender recently released their brand new book “Search Patterns: Design for Discovery“.  I had the honor to chat with Peter about what drove him to write his new book, why he thinks search is such a challenge still,  and his thoughts on where the future of search lies.

JH: Why did you decide to focus on search for your new book?

Peter Morville

PM: In my consulting projects, search kept surfacing as the single biggest opportunity to improve the user experience, and I felt unequal to the task. So, I decided to invest in my own edification by writing a book. Plus, I wanted to inspire others to make search better. After all, search is among the most disruptive innovations of our time. It influences what we buy and where we go. It shapes how we learn and what we know. Designing for search and discovery isn’t just interesting. It’s important. We have a responsibility to get it right.

How is designing for search different from traditional browsing and navigation?

I design for multiple (complementary) modes of seeking, so that users can browse and search their way to success. Explicit navigation serves as a map for wayfinding and understanding, while the search box offers a shortcut that employs semantics to bypass structure. Often, these modes need be distinct only in the opening. In search, users make the first move by typing words to declare intent. But, the SERP (search engine results page) is a browsable interface with visible context. Alternatively, you may begin with browse, but then query the category that you’re inside using scoped search. A well designed system lets people flow between modes and offers immediate feedback, because in the endgame, it’s all about interaction.

What makes search such a challenge, especially given all the advancements in technology over the years?

Search is a wicked problem for two reasons. First, it’s radically multidisciplinary, requiring real collaboration between design, engineering, and marketing. For most organizations, right there, it’s already game over. They simply can’t get these folks to work together. Second it’s a project and a process, requiring a major initial investment and the commitment to continuous improvement. Few organizations are good at both.

How do you see the findability of large scale gestural interfaces (i.e. The ‘Minority Report’ Interface) working in the future?

I’m very interested in gestural interaction, and we include examples in the book from the activation of Google Voice Search (raise your iPhone to your ear) to the augmented reality of Yelp Monocle (query the world by wandering). Undoubtedly, large scale gestural interfaces will offer us surprising new ways to interact with digital and physical objects such as images, video cameras, and UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). That said, absent a great leap forward in the technology of the human brain, it will remain as important as ever to make key features easy to use and discover. In fact, I predict that the large scale gestural interfaces of the future will sport a search box as a starting point, even in 2054.

I predict that the large scale gestural interfaces of the future will sport a search box as a starting point, even in 2054.

Why do you think that search has become such a natural behavior for people?

Search is more natural than language. That’s why “natural language search” won’t work. It’s inefficient and artificial. Why string together complete sentences? We’d rather grunt and point or enter a few keywords and go. It’s a great way to start that admits the “paradox of the active user.” We routinely prefer the illusion of speed and simplicity instead of taking time to understand the territory and chart an optimal course. But, the first result set can be a terrible place to end. That’s why the SERP is such an important map. When we find we haven’t found what we need or expect, we’re surprised and ready to learn. In this way, search results create a “teachable moment.” And this evolution from “act” to “learn” is also natural. It’s only when we get lost and know we need help that we stop and ask for directions.

What was the inspiration behind taking a visual approach to writing about Search Patterns?

Search Patterns

Two major sources of inspiration were Dan Roam’s The Back of the Napkin and Dave Gray’s work on visual thinking. Collaborating with graphic designer Jeffery Callender (my co-author) to bring search and discovery to life with sketches, diagrams, and cartoons was seriously fun. And, I think the book is better (and different) as a result.

Of the patterns you identify in the book, which ones are misused the most? And why?

Advanced search is the pattern we love to hate. Here’s a brief excerpt:

“Often, advanced search is a clumsy add-on that’s rarely used, and it lets engineers and designers take the easy way out. Valuable features that are difficult to integrate into the main interface can be relocated to the ghetto and forgotten. Plus, there’s confusion about its purpose. Is it a user-friendly query builder for novices or a power tool for experts? Many interfaces try (and fail) to be both. For instance, isn’t it fair to assume that users who understand what “exact phrase” means also know to use quotation marks to specify such a search? The main problem with Boolean isn’t the syntax, it’s the logic. Even the plain language is unlikely to help the few novices who brave the intimidating realm of advanced search, as shown below:

Advanced search at Genentech: Plain text doesn't make it less intimidating

“This pattern also suffers from an ignorance of context. Searches are situated. They take place in a space. Having navigated through music to the folk genre, users may want to search without leaving. Scoped search is a pattern that meets this need. There’s a risk that users won’t see the scope, but overrides in the case of few or no results can help. In most cases, users benefit, because scoped search caters to context. In contrast, advanced search often teleports us to a distant, unfamiliar locale. It’s disruptive to flow.”

But, advanced search isn’t always an anti-pattern. Sometimes, it’s really useful. When? For that, you’ll have to read the book.

What are your goals with the new search pattern library that complements your book?

Our goals for the book and the library are one and the same. We want to make search better. Or, to be more precise, we want to inspire you to make search better. The book is a linear narrative. It’s best read front to back. The library offers random access to patterns of behavior and design. It’s a maze for getting lost and a labyrinth for self-discovery. And, as with any living library or garden, it’s eternally incomplete. We hope you’ll join us by adding novel patterns and forking paths.

So what’s up with the butterfly?

O’Reilly authors don’t choose the animals, but we do have veto power. To get the lemur, I rejected a golden retriever. To get the butterfly, we refused a kestrel. And, to get the polar bear, we just got lucky.

How do you see search changing as the world becomes more mobile? Will we soon ‘Google our shoes’, as Bruce Sterling suggests?

PM: In search, the potential exists for a multitude of diverse futures, many of which will occur. And, it’s a good bet that these possible futures will co-evolve in a loosely joined sorta way. For instance, I still do most serious searching at my desk, even though today’s mobile devices support traditional web search (via a browser) while also reframing search and discovery through the lens of the specialized app. With my iPhone, I can query barcodes with RedLaser, search for bathrooms with SitOrSquat, and find friends with Foursquare. These are all fairly discrete activities, but for personalization, there’s value in aggregating all of my behavior across applications and platforms.

When we use the term “mobile search” we should unbind the concepts of “searching while mobile” and “searching on a phone” because our devices and the ways we interact with information are likely to undergo radical change. I don’t expect, when I’m 64, that “mobile search” will involve small screens. Instead, we’ll augment reality via iGlasses and display data directly on skin, clothing, sidewalks, and buildings. But, I absolutely do expect to Google my shoes, to learn about their construction, history, and proper disposal; and to find out where I left them.

Recently you launched a contest where people had to try and explain IA as best as they could. Why? What’s the biggest takeaway from this challenge?

Last year, as preparation for his information architecture class, Dan Klyn asked Twitter #whatswrongwithia. My response kicked off a discussion with Andrew Hinton that led to Explain IA. Our goals were to engage the IA community (by fostering creativity and discussion) and advance the field (by evolving our definitions and sharing our stories). It was a huge success and a lot of fun. My takeaway was that although the IA community is quieter than it was ten years ago, there’s still tremendous energy and passion beneath the surface.

How have you found yourself thinking differently about the way people search after putting these patterns together?

PM: Search isn’t just about findability. It’s also about learning, understanding, sharing, and acting. In mobile, for instance, we can enable people to buy products, share songs, play movies, and make calls directly from the results interface. Or, in research, we can offer ways to compare and contrast results with rich visualizations and overlays of time and place. Having worked through the more basic patterns, I’m now enjoying the challenge of designing search and discovery applications that embrace the full spectrum of user goals.

What would you say is the most important concept regarding search?

PM: C. S. Lewis once noted “Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.” That’s why I see every search application as having the potential to become a complex adaptive system that exhibits macroscopic properties of self-organization and emergence. And, that’s why I include creators as part of the anatomy of search. On every project, I try to design for interaction and feedback, and to connect (and intertwingle) users and creators, so that the whole is greater (and different) than the sum of its parts.

The Anatomy of Search

You’re going to be talking about Search Patterns at the IA Summit. What else are you looking forward to?

PM: I’m genuinely excited about this year’s IA Summit, but not because of my own session. What I’m looking forward to in Phoenix is Seeing the Summit through the eyes of Dan Roam, Dave Gray, Dan Willis, Richard Saul Wurman, and Kevin Cheng. And, I’m hoping to build on their ideas in my upcoming workshop, Information Architecture with Maps, which is really just another lens for examining search and discovery.