| |
 |
 |
Unlike a simple hierarchical
scheme, faceted classification gives the
users the ability to find items based
on more than one dimension. For example,
some users shopping for jewelry may be
most interested in browsing by particular
type of jewelry (earrings, necklaces),
while others are more interested in browsing
by a particular material (gold, silver).
“Material” and “type”
are examples of facets; earrings,
necklaces, gold, silver are examples of
facet values.
Data below is from
75 leading e-commerce sites, collected
in October, 2003. [sites
examined] |
|
|
| |
| |
Frequency of Faceted Classification
69% of sites made at least some
use of faceted classification.
In four product categories (Computers,
Gifts, Kitchen Ware, Music/Video) all sites within
the category used faceted classification. In one product
category (Office Supplies) no sites within the category
made use of facets. |
| |
| |
Advanced Search vs. Faceted Navigation
A faceted classification scheme may
be implemented in an advanced search interface and/or
as part of the navigational interface for browsing. |
|
77% of sites using faceted classification
provided faceted navigation,
but no facet-based advanced search.
[example
details] |
 |
6% of sites using faceted classification
provided a facet-based advanced search
or “gift finder,” but no
faceted navigation.
[example
details] |
 |
17% of sites provided
both faceted navigation and a facet-based
advanced search or gift finder.
[example
details] |
|
| |
Equally-Weighted Facets vs. Main and Secondary
Facets
In pages containing faceted navigation,
the facets were either presented with equal visual
weight (giving equal emphasis to each facet) or with
clear main and secondary facets.
Equally-Weighted Facets
65% of pages with faceted navigation
used equally weighted facets. In this case, the facets
shared the same location on the page and used the
same style of presentation.
Examples:
[Facets
with values displayed as links]
[Facets
with values in pull-down menus]
[Facets
with values on down-to-child pages]
Main and Secondary Facets
35% of pages with faceted navigation
gave emphasis to one facet over one or more secondary
facets. This was done by:
- Giving a more prominent page position
and/or greater visual weight to primary facet(s)
- Displaying the values for primary
facet(s) on the page, while presenting only a link
to the values of the secondary facets or using a
pull-down menu to contain the values for secondary
facets.
Examples:
[Secondary
facet, less prominent position/less visual weight]
[Secondary
facet, values in pull-down menu]
[Secondary
facets, values on down-to-child pages] |
| |
| |
Single-Level vs. Multi-Level Facets
67% of sites providing faceted navigation
did so at a single point in the browse path. For example,
on a top-level page, the user may have the option
to browse by brand or category, but no additional
faceted navigation options are presented along the
browse path.
28% of sites providing faceted navigation
at more than one point in the browse path, creating
a progressive filtering experience based on multiple
criteria.
4% of sites providing faceted navigation
presented multiple filtering options on the page in
a search-like interface. The user selects one or more
values from a pull-down, clicks submit, and the page
displays a filtered list of links based on the selected
values.
Examples:
[Progressive
filtering along browse path]
[Page
filtering interface]
|
|
