How to improve information architecture and navigation: organize content first, then check paths against user tasks

Improving information architecture and navigation should start with an inventory of existing content and the tasks users want to complete. Next, adjust categories, labels, and entry points to content, then check where users start looking and at which level they go astray. The goal is not simply to change how menus look, but to organize content in ways that match users’ expectations. The available material supports this review process, but it does not include a content inventory or interaction logs for a specific website, so it cannot directly establish which categories should be deleted or moved.

Map the current structure before deciding how to reorganize content

A 2023 NN/g article explains that information architecture encompasses content organization, relationships between content, and navigation labels. A sitemap is a tool for representing the structure, not the entirety of information architecture. When reviewing an existing website, mapping its current structure can help with the inventory, but a new sitemap should be created only after the approach to categorization has been established.

• List the current main categories, subcategories, and URLs of pages you plan to keep.
• Review where content currently sits in light of the website’s subject matter, visitors’ goals, and the value of the information.
• Consult user click and interaction logs and compare how similar websites organize their content, then develop a new category hierarchy.

A 2022 article by Neil Patel uses mountaineering content as an example: someone looking for information on how to climb Mount Everest may not be well served by a path through “Tips, Climbing Strategies, Asian Mountains.” If visitors start with the mountain’s name, “Mountains, Mount Everest, How to Climb” may better match their expectations. This illustrates how to adjust a path around a task; it is not a category structure that every website should adopt.

Navigation should match how people look for information, not necessarily reproduce the full taxonomy

A 2022 NN/g article distinguishes between two needs: a taxonomy prioritizes logical precision, while user-facing navigation prioritizes groupings that match users’ understanding. A comprehensive backend taxonomy is therefore not necessarily suitable for placing unchanged into a menu.

For websites where most tasks are topic-driven, a 2014 NN/g article recommends avoiding top-level navigation organized primarily by content format. For example, if visitors want an answer to a question, asking them to choose “Videos” or “Articles” first may not help them determine where to find it. This recommendation applies under specific conditions; it should not be generalized to mean that no website should categorize content by format.

Distinguish between a wrong starting point and confusing lower-level labels

NN/g’s 2024 analysis of tree testing explains that success rates can indicate how easy content is to find, while detailed paths help identify ways to improve it. Look not only at whether users eventually find the content, but also at their first clicks and final selections:

• The first step is correct, but the final selection is wrong: Lower-level categories may overlap. Examine users’ final destinations and make subcategory labels easier to distinguish.
• First clicks are spread across categories for many tasks: Categories may overlap throughout the structure. Consider card sorting or reviewing the overall organization.
• Success rates are low, or paths are indirect: Check where users expected to find the content, and consider moving items or providing entry points in multiple categories.

These patterns are diagnostic clues, not grounds for determining a cause from a single click. Consider the tasks and complete paths together when deciding which level to change.