When to include a sitemap on websites ?

[wii]

The title says it all, I´m a little unsure about this, no doubt that very large websites should have a sitemap, so people can get an idea of the structure, but how small does a website have to be before it´s not necessary, or would you say it´s always a good idea to include a sitemap ?

Thanks

[stymiee]

Having a sitemap is always a good idea. It can only make your site more usable which is great for humans and for search engines.

[Bullfrog245]

I would say that if you only have one page, then you do not need a sitemap ^_^ Like stymiee said, have one will help humans and search engines get around your site easier. It also helps internal linking.

[Black Max]

Question along these lines:

I have a 100+ page site, so I definitely have a sitemap. The site is in Strict, and reliant on CSS formatting. Should my sitemap make more of an effort to work with lower-level browsers (i.e. antiques, not to mention Lynx and other accessibility-driven browsers) by eschewing the CSS format and going with straight, plain-vanilla HTML with no bells and whistles?

[Bullfrog245]

Question along these lines:

I have a 100+ page site, so I definitely have a sitemap. The site is in Strict, and reliant on CSS formatting. Should my sitemap make more of an effort to work with lower-level browsers (i.e. antiques, not to mention Lynx and other accessibility-driven browsers) by eschewing the CSS format and going with straight, plain-vanilla HTML with no bells and whistles?

Try disabling your CSS. If your site is still readable, and it should be, then don't worry about making a no frills site map. People with newer browsers will like the CSS sitemap more, and people with older browsers will still be able to navigate with ease.

[Black Max]

Thanks, Bullfrog. The page looks workable without CSS, so I'm just going to leave it alone.

[twistie]

Also use a xml sitemap, they are a great SEO feature.

[wii]

Yeah, I do use Google maps.

[felgall]

If you have few enough pages that you have links on every page to every other page then you don't need a separate sitemap. Once you have too many pages to link them all together then you need a sitemap.

[ewomack]

As noted above, it's all a matter of complexity. Sometimes sitemaps make navigating more convenient, but sometimes their links just take up valuable screen space. Without massive complexity don't worry about it unless your client demands one.

[stymiee]

As noted above, it's all a matter of complexity. Sometimes sitemaps make navigating more convenient, but sometimes their links just take up valuable screen space. Without massive complexity don't worry about it unless your client demands one.

That's why sitemaps should be on their own separate page. They shouldn't be on every page. And any decent website with more then a couple of handfuls of pages will use a sitemap.

[onwired]

but how small does a website have to be before it´s not necessary, or would you say it´s always a good idea to include a sitemap ?

Think I may be the lone dissenter here: I would assert that it's rarely necessary to have a site map, inasmuch as designers too often rely on it instead of consistent, intuitive, concise navigation. That is, if your site needs a site map to understand how it's structured, I think you need to rethink how your site is structured...

This, of course, would not be the case for very large sites with many pages, for which there is no easy way otherwise to convey all of the content at a glance. And as for search engines: compelling, useful content goes a lot farther...

[stymiee]

Think I may be the lone dissenter here: I would assert that it's rarely necessary to have a site map, inasmuch as designers too often rely on it instead of consistent, intuitive, concise navigation. That is, if your site needs a site map to understand how it's structured, I think you need to rethink how your site is structured...

This, of course, would not be the case for very large sites with many pages, for which there is no easy way otherwise to convey all of the content at a glance. And as for search engines: compelling, useful content goes a lot farther...

Providing users who are not Internet savvy the ability to find information quickly is a core element of usability. A sitemap is a great way to do that. It doesn't mean the design is flawed. Instead it means the designer is doing their best to make their site easy to navigate for everyone.

[onwired]

Providing users who are not Internet savvy the ability to find information quickly is a core element of usability. A sitemap is a great way to do that.

True enough, the goal is to find information quickly and easily. Site maps do provide that as a failsafe, certainly, but what I'm suggesting is that it would be unwise to use them in lieu of a consistent, intuitive UI. Often the user who opts for the site map to find what s/he is looking for is usually not otherwise able to do so by means of the site's architecture itself: too many navigation elements, unclear hierarchy, missing search function, etc.

To restate: when designers consider deeply the ease of use from the beginning, site maps become mostly redundant for users...

[stymiee]

True enough, the goal is to find information quickly and easily. Site maps do provide that as a failsafe, certainly, but what I'm suggesting is that it would be unwise to use them in lieu of a consistent, intuitive UI. Often the user who opts for the site map to find what s/he is looking for is usually not otherwise able to do so by means of the site's architecture itself: too many navigation elements, unclear hierarchy, missing search function, etc.

To restate: when designers consider deeply the ease of use from the beginning, site maps become mostly redundant for users...

That would be solid advice.