I remember writing an article about how to design TAB navigation, which introduced several types in general. This week, I happened to encounter a problem about TAB navigation: The product manager asked to increase the bottom navigation from five main functions to six. How can the interaction designer convince the product to stop this idea? This week I’ll elaborate on some of the main points and some of the questions that come out of it.
Don’t break the tabbed navigation architecture
I wrote an article about the core functions of the product before (I will give a link later), which stated that: in the project development stage, we should focus on the main functions of the product, and should not deviate from the direction, and change the main pattern of the product for other auxiliary functions. Why is that?
In the process of users using this product, they must use it to achieve a certain purpose or complete a certain task, which indicates that the product must have the function to solve the problem of target users.
Does a product have five core functions? The answer is no. No matter how good a product is, it must have only one core function, while other functions must be sub-functions or auxiliary functions. Its existence or not does not affect the value of the core function of the product. Such as shopping App, add game functions.
Including wechat, Alipay and so on. Even though Alipay has so many functions and even slowly begins to guide users to socialize, more people just use it as a third-party payment method. I don’t think they would have included top-up as a TAB navigation feature if it had become their primary revenue stream.
It seems that there is still no further discussion. Why can’t highlighting the core function be included in the TAB navigation?
The problem should start with TAB navigation itself. Tag navigation is the main framework of a product. The framework distribution of a product is basically organized by tag navigation, so that users can understand the main functions of the product. Now more functions are done by tag navigation with other navigation, such as using list navigation to do branches (mentioned in another article before), so once there are too many sub-functions, it is very good to use list navigation to do distribution, without affecting tag navigation, and thus does not affect the main framework of the product.
In current product design, tag navigation is not used to display a single function, but a collection of multiple functions. Here’s an example:
When you see the functions of Meituan, there are three labels below: “Home page”, “business” and “mine”. Click the “food” function of “home page”, enter the page, what do you see? Bottom navigation is gone.To illustrate my point, the tabs of TAB navigation are just a collection of functions.
So as long as you don’t change the TAB navigation, but just change the location of the function, then the user can also quickly find the function it needs.
Of course, you might say, “Tabbed navigation can also have separate functions.” This example is not to say that all products do this, but to tell you that at this stage of App development, users have formed a certain type of App, not to mention domestic and foreign. Breaking this specification will only create a bias in the user’s understanding of the product. If a popular “live broadcast function” is added at the bottom of Meituan, how should users understand this product? Does it want to do group buying or live streaming?
If live streaming is used to promote group buying, then… Think about what the core idea of online shopping is, and I won’t go into it here.
What if this feature is really “red”?
One might say, “In your opinion, should TAB navigation be left unchanged from start to finish?” Isn’t.
From the strategic level, we should set the main framework of the product at the beginning, and if it needs to be changed in the later stage, we should make adjustments without disturbing users. Even if there is some disturbance, as long as we grasp the core functions and user goals, users will give certain understanding and corresponding support.
However, if a feature changes the landscape of the product, there can be problems.
Continuing with the example above, the live streaming feature. As we all know, livestreaming is very popular nowadays, and various livestreaming apps emerge endlessly. If my product is suitable for this feature, should I include it in the TAB navigation? If it were me, I wouldn’t agree.
First of all, joining it would break the pattern, but I won’t talk about that, because the first argument has been described in detail.
Another point is that this will not only make the core users of the product lose their sense of direction, but also lead to the loss of another part of users who are interested in this feature when it exits the TAB navigation, which is a disadvantage in the long term.
Here’s my second point: don’t include red features in your TAB navigation unless your product level is shallow and it’s a core feature that mainstream users are looking for.
Here’s another example:
Everyone has used chanba, the function of chanba is to sing and listen to others sing (I personally understand). So the user purpose of singing is very obvious, nothing more than these two kinds. The key to retaining users is not to add ancillary features, but to improve the user experience of core features.
The hierarchy of sing bar is very clear, all the functions of tag navigation are not a collection of sub-functions, but itself is a function, but in detail, it is also a collection, because “sing” is divided into “song station”, “songs have been ordered,” local recording “. But that’s not what I’m talking about here.
But if singing and chatting were combined into one “mine”, it would obviously detract from the experience. Add a “shopping” feature, and maybe the traffic will pick up this month, just maybe, but the people who used to like singing will definitely lose traffic.
So: Don’t degrade the user experience of the product itself by adding other features that break the product landscape. What if there are other more popular features in the future?
How to convince others?
The arguments described above are not enough to convince someone why they should not include sub-functions in TAB navigation. Because in the hearts of others, they have their own judgment basis, their hearts have their own scale. What if the product manager is the boss? Do you refuse him, too? So what to do?
So… Remember: When we interact, we never guarantee that anything is right or wrong, because even data is not a panacea. Even I’m not 100% right, because even “science” is not 100% right. Your job is not to convince the other person not to do it, but to show them why they shouldn’t do it, and then it’s up to them to convince you how to do it!
If they come up with ideas and evidence that overturns your so-called standards, why not give it a try?
I never engage in a fight, even academically, because I believe that very few people, not even the best in their field, are 100% right. Therefore, we should be a person who listens to advice and is stable. When questioned, we can take out the basis of our views and review the knowledge and opinions from all sides with a subjective attitude of probability, and turn them into our own use. This is not the ancient said sage, ha ha. Depends on how you interpret it.
Finally, a summary
Here are 6 ideas for today:
1. In the project development stage, we should focus on the main functions of the product, and should not deviate from the direction to change the main pattern of the product for other auxiliary functions;
2. In current product design, tag navigation is not used to display a single function, but a collection of multiple functions;
3. Even if the function is “red”, do not include it in the TAB navigation column, unless your product level is shallow, and it is the core function of the product, mainstream users are also for it;
4. To retain users, it is not to add auxiliary functions, but to improve the user experience of core functions;
5. Do not reduce the user experience of the product itself in order to add other functions to break the product pattern;
Our views should be adjusted to actual conditions, not fixed.
It seems so simple, but it’s hard to do, and very few people can do it, and I’m still figuring it out.
Because most of us rely on the facts we observe around us, that is, a part or a particular case as the whole world. You know, even the scientific results that scientists publish in top columns are not necessarily correct.
So for the last time: our views should be adjusted to reality, not set in stone.
END.