The annual siteIQ eBusiness rankings just hit the airwaves. This year’s report is a whopper. 95 pages, 108 graphs – and our usual politically incorrect take on what it all means.

Here’s how some of the 2011 rankings shake out.

Overall Performance.  IBM.com and Cisco.com share the winner’s podium.

2011 was the year that IBM.com transformed itself from a large, aging duckling into a swan to be reckoned with (at least above the water line). There’s been many a late night for the IBM.com team—and the “wow” factor inherent in its new design has gone a long way toward keeping it in the top slot this year.

It’s been many a moon since Cisco.com had its overnight makeover—but this team’s intrepid iterative design strategy keeps this site fresh and innovative season after season. Cisco.com has building a better mousetrap down to a science—and that’s why it bumped IBM.com over and shares the #1 spotlight this year.

Usability & Effectiveness | The best hold their own

It’s no surprise that the overall winners—IBM.com and Cisco.com—also aced the usability & effectiveness tests. Both teams have been busy performing some pretty substantial site facelifts over the past year—and their high wire acts paid some nice dividends.

CA.com, IBM Software Group and Symantec.com complete the top five usability roster. CA.com held its own (third place), IBM Software jumped into fourth (from 6^th), and Symantec.com — last year’s usability darling — slipped from third to fifth.

Symantec.com’s fall from grace sounds like bad news for the team, but it’s actually a bit of high praise. After all, most of the Symantec.com site hasn’t really changed much over the past 36 months. That’s a virtual lifetime in Internet years. Staying in the top five is a testament to all of the hard work that went into this site’s base design and architecture. But times are changing—and it will be interesting to see if Symantec.com can keep up.

Content, features & capabilities | The same dance continues and Dell finally gets its bragging rights.

Mirror, mirror on the wall. Which is the biggest Website of all? Once the mist in the mirror clears, you’ll be looking at HP.com. In fact, this year, HP.com succeeded in getting the top spot all to itself by bumping off its long-standing 80 pound rival gorilla IBM.com. If you squint real hard in the mirror, you’ll see Cisco.com quietly making the donuts in third place.

While IBM, HP, and Cisco executed their complex kabuki dances, Dell.com was busy thumping some other sites down the Index. This year, it took the top spot in the online support category after watching HP and IBM toss the winner’s baton back and forth. We’ve always challenged Dell.com’s self-proclaimed assertion that its support was the biggest & best in the business. Now it’s (partially) true.

Subscribers can pick it up in the Library right now. If you’re not a subscriber you can pick up a copy from the site here.

Subscribers Login Here. Non-subscribers can learn more about The Library here.

Dell: Close but no cigar

First, let’s consider Dell’s app (which runs on both iPhone and iPad), which delivers the broadest range of capabilities. The ability to browse and buy Dell products. Check orders. View classic support content and (drum roll please) access a nice assortment of support videos.

Given all of these goodies, you’d think the Dell mobile app would be a slam dunk. You’d be wrong.  The culprit? A design and interface that is, well, embarrassing.  I’m thinking a skunk works run amok. Clunky, clumsy, clueless, and certainly not up to Dell’s online brand.

Newegg does it better

If a great design and savvy interface are your cup of tea, Newegg’s app sets the standards. Great design. Crisp images. Perfect look and feel. Add easy to use—and this app hits all of the marks. Product details, reviews, return policies, and fast paths to similar products. The shopping cart and check out processes are works of art.

On the other hand, if you want mobile support, you’re out of luck. Newegg’s app is for browsing and buying. If your product is broken, you’ll have to go somewhere else.

Cisco gets it — again

Since mobile support is part of Dell’s iPad app DNA, I decided to see what’s up on the iPad support front. Cisco’s iPad support app (launched last March) is a great example of this new genre. Like Newegg, Cisco.com read the memo on the importance of a crisp design and great interface—and the app’s content architecture and features are also first rate. If developing an iPad support app is on your dance card, this should be at the top of your “inspiration” list.

So there you have it. Dell’s iPad app covers most of the bases, and Newegg and Cisco end up hitting all of the home runs.

I’m putting the final touches on a new case study which will hit the Library this week. If you are a subscriber, look for an alert in your email. If you aren’t a member of the family, you can learn more about the Case Studies Library here.

Overall: Accenture.com
Usability & Effectiveness: Accenture.com
Content, Features & Capabilities: Accenture.com

Last week, we took a close look at how classic professional services Websites fare when they are put under the siteIQ microscope–and made some pretty substantial changes in the ways these Websites are measured on the siteIQ benchmarks. The net result is a much slimmer benchmark that hones in on the unique ways these companies do business on the Web.

Since there’s no time like the present to see the impact of these changes, we put the three professional services Websites on the siteIQ eBusiness Index through this new evaluation model. Then we published the results in a new report.

So how did things change?

A lot.

First and foremost, Accenture.com moved from second to first place courtesy of very strong navigational, search, and services marketing scores. Services marketing now rates a Good Practice. As important, Accenture.com’s overall usability beats all comers.

IBM Global Services’ Website ended up in a reasonably close second place. It matches Accenture.com’s services marketing Good Practice, but took it on the chin in the navigation and search categories. Just goes to show you that paying attention to those pesky architecture and cross-site utilities can make a huge difference.

And how did Deloitte.com fare in a rising tide that floated all boats? Ho hum. It still ranks third and gained one star–but missed the Good Practice dock by a mile. This site’s best showing is in (yikes!) online recruiting. On the other hand, every services and corporate marketing category ranks third.

And what about the rest of 2012? We’re betting that IBM Global Services’ slow motion revamp will start to pay dividends by the end of this year. That means that Accenture.com shouldn’t rest on its laurels–and should pay close attention to the cult of personality strategy IBM.com is rolling out.

More scoring details, plus new rankings and ratings, are available in our new Professional Services Report. If you already own a copy of our earlier report, a new copy is on the way to your desktop. Library subscribers can pick up their copy here (you’ll need those pesky log in credentials). If you aren’t a subscriber you can learn more about The Library here.

Overall: Symantec.com
Usability & Effectiveness: Symantec.com
Content, Features & Capabilities: Microsoft.com

Each business software site’s redesign over the past year has caused content and features to shrink on a huge scale. But did these diets help the sites’ usability scores? At least one Website should think so.  Here’s the rundown from first place to last:

1. Any Web team that focuses on site usability should put Symantec.com at the top of its watch list. This site’s usability ranking not only debuted at number 2 on the siteIQ Enterprise Software Index, but held its number 1 position in usability while stealing first place in overall performance from Microsoft.com in the siteIQ Business Software Index. Not bad for a year’s work.
2. Microsoft.com’s site reductions during its rolling redesign took a toll on its performance this year. It is still the ten-ton gorilla in the business software segment, but its third place usability ranking is pure monkey business.
3. Adobe.com’s story is similar to Microsoft.com’s. It is the smallest of the business software sites reviewed—and it got smaller over the course of the year. But unlike Microsoft.com, Adobe.com brings in relatively admirable usability scores. Unfortunately, it wasn’t enough to reach any of the brass rings in 2011.

There’s plenty more rankings & ratings – and our take on the evaluation results – in our new Business Software Report.  Subscribers can pick up a copy in the Library. If you aren’t a subscriber you can learn more here…..

Subscribers Login Here.
Non-subscribers can learn more about The Library here.

Overall: Cisco.com
Usability & Effectiveness: Cisco.com
Content, Features & Capabilities: Cisco.com

Site refreshes, redesigns, and company acquisitions. All were in play in the networking systems segment last year. Did these facelifts improve these site’s usability? Did HP’s acquisition of 3Com give the old ProCurve site a new lease on life? Here’s the rundown from first place to last:

1. It is no surprise that networking giant and usability muse Cisco.com swept the Index awards. The site has been undergoing an iterative refresh over the past year. What is surprising is how the slight changes improved Cisco.com’s performance enough to award them 12 first place rankings—just in usability alone. Congrats Cisco.com!
2. HP Networking’s inclusion on the siteIQ Index this year upset every site’s apple cart—and stole second place from Juniper.net. But did HP Networking really get second place all on its own? Let’s just say it is nice to be part of the HP.com family.
3. The site that took the greatest hit this year was Juniper.net. Despite a sweeping Website redesign (one well worth checking out), the site lost its second place position (in all major categories) and its changes failed to move its usability scores one whit. But it wasn’t all bad news for Juniper.net. Its work exposed Juniper.net as a major player in online communities—including a first place ranking for Corporate Blogs.
4. Brocade.com gets the sleeper of the year award for stealing second place in overall usability from Juniper.net. Like Juniper.net, Brocade.com has been making changes to its site too. The difference is that all its latest updates actually moved the usability ball down the field. But Brocade.com hardly has time to rest on its laurels if it is going to bump Juniper.net out of third place overall.

There’s plenty more rankings & ratings – and our take on the evaluation results – in our new Networking Systems Report. Subscribers can pick up a copy in the Library. If you aren’t a subscriber you can learn more here…..

Subscribers Login Here.

Non-subscribers can learn more about The Library here.

Overall: Oracle.com
Usability & Effectiveness: IBM Software Group
Content, Features & Capabilities: Oracle.com

With two companies performing complete site overhauls–and one nudging its site into place over the past year—rankings were bound to change in 2011. So which sites were the major movers and shakers over the past 12 months? Which ones are the sites to watch through 2012? Here’s the rundown from first place to last:

1. This year Oracle.com retained its title as the content “big foot” on the siteIQ eBusiness Index (1)—and this footprint worked to deliver it the first place ranking. On the other hand, a broader look at the enterprise software industry shows that Oracle.com doesn’t have any room to rest on its laurels. Now it has CA.com gunning to be an enterprise software Goliath and IBM Software is upping the usability bar. To compete in the future, Oracle.com needs to up its game.
2. Incremental change was the name of the game at CA.com. That’s not to say there were any major splashes or “ta da’s”. Just a series of re-launches and endless tweaking that ended up creating a noticeable transformation. On the other hand, one look at CA.com’s scores and rankings shows that change isn’t always a good thing. CA.com lost its #1 usability ranking (dropped to third)—and is the only site that registered a net decrease in its usability & effectiveness score.
3. IBM Software’s latest site redesign is part of IBM.com’s Centennial revamp that is trying to change all of the rules. Here, The IBM Software team’s hard work—and CA.com’s tumble—delivered it the first place usability & effectiveness ranking and the only Good Practice rating in the group. The site’s renovation also delivered more content & features—but the real story is the site’s impressive string of 13 “Good Practice” usability ratings. The fact that its online communities are now visible on the site didn’t hurt either.
4. We didn’t add Symantec.com to the enterprise software mix this year because it’s selling large, complex software solutions. We added it because the enterprise systems “big wigs” are continuing to move down market with SMB and SaaS solutions that rely on the kinds of marketing and eCommerce capabilities that have long been a Symantec.com forte. So how did Symantec.com fare when compared to its mega software brethren? On the one hand, there’s no doubt that Symantec’s content & features are the size of a newt (relatively speaking). On the other hand, Symantec.com proves that small can be mighty. It usability & effectiveness debuted at second place—which proves that it knows how to capitalize on every single asset.
5. In April the German giant SAP.com unveiled a ginormous make-over that is still a work in progress. But if early scores are any indication, this new site is likely to give other sites a run for their money. Within a month of launch, this partial implementation was already moving the site’s content and usability & effectiveness scoring needles in the right direction. It ranks fifth to be sure—but its strong showing tells us that SAP.com will be a serious competitor within the next 12 months.
6. SAS.com’s scores paint a picture of a site that is running hard to stay in place. Here, substantial corporate marketing-class additions and improved communities visibility delivered the largest increase in overall content, features & capabilities scores—but burning the content midnight oil didn’t move its usability & effectiveness scores one whit. It ends up in 6th place (that’s dead last) with a 50.96% score and two stars (below average).

There’s plenty more rankings & ratings – and our take on the evaluation results – in our new Enterprise Software Report.

(1) Note: Oracle.com’s hardware product areas (a.k.a. Sun Microsystems hardware & systems) were not reviewed for this industry segment.

Subscribers Login Here.
Non-subscribers can learn more about The Library here.

Kenna Dian: Don’t Bother

Intel.com’s latest redesign is like buying an exotic car. It is visually striking, can be fun to drive, and has more bells and whistles than other cars on the road. But going exotic has tradeoffs. Choosing to pass on getting the full options package can leave the driving experience far less exciting than advertised. In fact, it may even break down–always in inconvenient locations. And the unique controls and design that seems edgy and innovative in the beginning quickly become confusing and irritating.

I really want to buy Intel.com’s exotic new design. But in the end, I simply can’t afford the time, effort and resources I need to invest to make it work. Some of my biggest gripes are:

The product content is like a Chinese dinner. There’s a nice selection of information available, but it is difficult to find anything really substantial in a single location.

Too many things that make you go “huh?” This site presents links, link summaries, and even images, that make no sense, are meaningless, or–at best–make the visitor work to know what they’re for.

Content below the fold is often invisible. Design misfires can make the page appear to be only one screen load when in fact there is much more. Unfortunately, this invisible content is some of the most critical for visitors wanting to buy Intel’s products.

All Flash, no pan. One thing quickly becomes apparent while surfing this site. If you don’t have Adobe Flash Player you won’t just have a mediocre experience—you will be missing information.

Marty:  Don’t Bother (with a couple of moments of brilliance)

I hate to say this Kenna, but my vote is split on the new Intel.com Website. On the plus side, this new design does a great job of pushing the whole negative design, smart search, ubiquitous videos, and mega menu balls down the field. It also had more doodads than a gourmet kitchen. On other hand, it’s also the poster child for some design decisions that should send smart teams right back to the drawing board.

When all of these pros and cons were added up and weighted, I ended up on the “Danger Will Robinson” side of the ledger. Here’s three reasons why.

Intel.com joins HP.com at the forefront of a very tricky (and IMHO dangerous) design trend—flexible designs. These layouts adjust to different screen sizes and resolutions so Websites can adapt to a potpourri of different user devices and platforms. The laptop. The desktop. The tablet. The phone.  Instead of designing a Website for each platform—why not use a flexible design that can act as a “one-size-fits-all” solution? Well, one reason is that it doesn’t always work. [There's more on why in the complete review published in our Case Studies Library--see the link below].

The name of this game is Apple, and it plays by its own rules. Here, the problem lies in the fact that Intel.com’s cool new tools rely on Flash—which is a non-starter on Apple devices.  That means Intel.com is about 150 million devices short of a Happy Meal.

This site is harder to crack than Fort Knox.  Intel.com’s new home page is a pluperfect example of a new genre. Visual.  Edgy.  Spare. Out of the norm. Unfortunately, it also seems to operate under the premise that most visitors want to start their journey by searching for the content located inside the site. I don’t know about you, but conducting a “hail Mary” search without any road signs is my activity of last resort.  Sorry Intel. D-

Read the complete review in the siteIntelligence Case Studies Library. If you are a subscriber, click here to check it out (login required).

If you are not a subscriber you can learn more about this service here.

Other Stuff to do:

Learn about how IBM.com is changing up the rules in the Visions of IBM.com’s grand redesign emerge blog post.

Overall: IBM.com
Usability: IBM.com
Content, Features & Capabilities: HP.com

But the siteIQ eBusiness Index is always about more than just rankings, ratings, and numbers. So what’s the story about what happened over the past 12 months? Here’s the rundown from first place to last:

1. IBM.com lost sole ownership of its first place position–and with that some bragging rights. Although they added another “Best Practice” rating under their belt, they lost three “Good Practice” ratings due to HP.com’s massive site footprint—which only got larger over the past year. Nevertheless, IBM.com still holds its own—albeit by a margin that is half of what it used to be.
2. Believe it or not, HP.com has a lot to crow about. It garnered a first place ranking for Content, Features & Capabilities, making it the most robust enterprise systems site on the siteIQ Index. It also added another “Best Practice” rating in eCommerce, bringing its total up from two to three. However these accolades can’t hide a dismal ranking in site usability, which just happens to be what really counts this year. Just goes to show, just because your site is big doesn’t mean its usable.
3. Not surprisingly, Dell.com spent the last 12 months focused on core marketing and selling requirements: product marketing, online communities, call to action, and eCommerce. This has always been its tactical modus operandi. Overall improvements in corporate marketing areas are also evident—the most notable being a massive increase in its investor relations.
4. Oracle.com added site content and features across every area of the site—except support. Meanwhile usability scores stayed flat. However, the scoring trend shows that Oracle.com tends to do a more with less. In general, areas that had fewer content additions showed stronger usability scores than zones that went through major overhauls.
5. EMC.com’s story of the past year is largely one of treading water. With the exception of its tanking online support scores, all other areas received minor investments in content and features that resulted in minor upticks in its usability scores. Corporate and product marketing areas got the most attention. Corporate blogs made the biggest splash—from being a no-show in 2010 to a score of almost 60% in 2011.
6. In the past 12 months Intel.com introduced the barest glimmer of an eCommerce facility and corporate blogs area. These two additions alone are responsible for virtually all of Intel.com’s scoring increases over the past year. Most other categories registered less than 1% change in content or usability scoring. (1)

To get all the gritty details–star ratings, competitive rankings, and detailed scoring–by category, by Website, and overall–click here to buy the report.

(1) At the time of this post, Intel.com introduced a new Website that had not been launched before the siteIQ eBusiness Index Enterprise Systems evaluations. siteIQ Best Practice Case Studies detailing the Intel.com redesign launch will be available in the Best Practice Case Study Library.

Subscribers Login Here.
Non-subscribers can learn more about The Library here.

Recently Marty Gruhn and I put IBM.com’s new mega-menu under the microscope and the results were…well…less than stellar. But a couple accidental slips of my cursor exposed some other new designs and approaches that are well worth taking a spin around the IBM.com site.

Navigation first, content second. If you click on one of the artfully hidden “all” links in IBM.com’s mega-menu (i.e. “all solutions” or “all services”) you will land on a page that is so simply designed and elegant that you will think you landed on a different site. You didn’t. This is the highest of the high levels of the new IBM.com. Sophisticated design aside, what is most notable is how the page is focused solely on navigating to the rest of the site. Broad, big-bucket links take visitors to more specific information, while the content only sets the context.

Introducing the mini-menu. With the popularity of micro-site Website architectures on the rise, moving around the dot com sites is becoming a problem. Some micro-site teams don’t want the big bulky navigation panel across the top of their pages*, while others want to design something that fits their own artistic vision. Enter the mini-menu. This design zips up the highest level of the global navigation panel into a tidy drop-down menu. In IBM.com’s case, it is activated by moving the cursor over the logo—another stroke of genius.

So, do these couple of accolades mean we are changing our stance on IBM.com’s mega-menu? Nope. Today it still has the same usability problems it did then. But one bad apple doesn’t spoil the bunch.

In fact, I highly recommend taking the top 2 to 3 levels of this site for a serious ride. If you bounce around long enough, you can begin to catch glimpses of the new IBM.com emerging. And if they actually pull off what it looks like they are shooting for, the new IBM.com will be a work of art—and a site to follow.

*See SAP.com’s new site (and read our post about the latest launch), some areas of Cisco.com, and the granddaddy of mega-micro-sites, Microsoft.com.

Fair warning, this post is long!

IBM.com has launched revised home and solutions pages that feature the next major piece in its evolution: a new take on mega-menus. Not surprisingly, IBM.com has put its own spin on what is fast becoming an industry norm. In this Don’t Miss/Don’t Bother we weigh in on the pros and cons of IBM.com’s latest design.

Marty | Neutral (with a qualified Don’t Bother)

One thing that’s sure about IBM: it always marches to the tune of its own drummer. That’s why I wasn’t really surprised when IBM.com launched its own rendition of the mega-menu.  With browser in hand, I took it for a spin.

After putting it through its paces, I’m essentially neutral about this evolution.

On the plus side, it’s lighting fast and creates a slick first impression. By using the whole page width, it makes maximum use of page real estate. This, in turn, makes it easier to handle those pesky stakeholders who insist on having their little piece of heaven on the global nav. It’s also a design optimized for companies with huge product and services portfolios.  Clearly IBM fits that bill.

So why am I neutral?  Let me count three ways.

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. There’s an old saw that nature abhors a vacuum—and the Web is no exception. Take IBM.com’s mega-menu real estate for example. Although a savvy design makes this menu look manageable at first blush, it is actually packed with 145 links spread across 5 main category tabs. The Solutions and Products tabs are the whoppers in the family, weighing in at 36 and 37 links respectively. Fortunately, the Solutions menu is listed in alphabetical order. I guess the “Products” tab owners missed the class on how to do A-Z categorization.

To be fair, there is no doubt that IBM.com’s new mega-menus are pencil slim if compared to the 200+ links buried in its older fly-out menus. But that doesn’t mean that progress should be measured in a best practice vacuum.

Here, consider two other mega-menu powerhouses with the same general tab layout: Cisco.com and Juniper.net.  Cisco.com’s mega menus clock in with 60 total links; roughly half of them (28) are on its new support mega menu (which qualifies as a new best practice and the industry’s first mega menu workhorse, read more here).  Meanwhile, Juniper.net weighs in at a very svelte 44 links.

As important, both of these sites visually break up their lists of links using asymmetrical layouts (Juniper.net) and, in the case of Cisco.com, additional visual cues that make it easy to spy and select the right links.

So what’s the point?  Simple. Finding and acting on a navigation decision is much faster and easier on the Cisco.com and Juniper.net sites.

When Mr. Magoo is you. Although most users will find the navigation panel easy to read, those in front of larger, high resolution screens are sure to have Mr. Magoo moments. One culprit is IBM’s decision to present links in a medium gray color—which is intended to provide a clear contrast as a link turns white when touched by a mouse. In practical use, this means that the Mr. Magoo crowd will end up mousing over every link in the lists until the correct one lights up. A beautiful design point, to be sure, but not one optimized for those of us whose arms aren’t quite long enough anymore. (If you don’t understand the reference, go ask your Mom).

On the plus side, I’m glad to report that viewing this new design on an iPad is a perfect user experience.  The font is an ideal size and the links work well with the touch of a finger. At the other end of the spectrum, don’t even get me started about the experience on a smartphone.

The law of unintended consequences. Everyone who works on the Web knows about the law of unintended consequences. The day the Oracle Technology Network site hijacked the Oracle.com home page (schwoops!). The year that Cisco’s IT organization redesigned and launched a new site—which created such an uproar that it had to provide a side link to the old site and ended up hiring a professional Website team (there’s a lesson here).

IBM.com’s marriage between its scrolling mega-menu and its F1 feature is just such an “unintended consequences” moment.

Simply put, users who happen to be moving to a menu on the right at the precise time that the F1 feature is cycling to the left are likely to have something akin to an out-of-body experience. Since a moving picture’s worth a thousand words, I’ve loaded a video of this experience into our Case Study Library. Just to let you know, a preemptive dose of Dramamine is strongly recommended.

So what does this mean in practical application?  Simple. If you plan to follow in IBM.com’s footsteps it’s a good idea to settle on static F1’s or a design that allows users to manually step through multiple features on the page. Combine automatic features and moving navigation willy nilly and you’ll need to hand out air sick bags.

Of course there’s plenty of other pros and cons associated with this new mega-menu launch—including why following IBM.com’s lead will require a design commitment well beyond your home page and why this is likely to be an unpopular decision with stakeholders.  For many companies facing limited budgets, marginal executive sponsorship, and a sea of cranky stakeholders, IBM.com’s gambit qualifies as a nasty rabbit hole you might want to avoid and thus, a Don’t Bother moment.

I’ve outlined these and other issues in my new case study which is available in the siteIntelligence Case Studies Library. If you are a subscriber, click here (you’ll need your log in credentials; Dramamine is highly recommended). If you are not a subscriber you don’t need Dramamine – and can learn more about this service here.

Kenna Dian | Don’t Bother

I have been using IBM.com’s new mega-menu design for a week now—opening it, closing it, spinning it, reading it. But after poking and prodding it every way possible I am only left with one question: where’s the added value?

If the purpose of a mega-menu is to display more navigation links using a larger panel, then IBM has hit the jackpot. But that is only one measly piece of a much larger puzzle. Mega-menus are also supposed to make a site’s global navigation easier for visitors to use. This is a much bigger job—and one where IBM misses the mark by a country mile.

IMHO, here’s why.

First, each panel is a blizzard of navigation links. Each menu is completely devoid of any design elements that would help users visually separate one category from another. In practical use, you end up scrutinizing each link to find the one you need, which is about as much fun as reading the white pages. Usability challenge: scannability.

Second, the topic headers are hot—or maybe not. After wandering through these menus for 4 days, Marty finally let me in on the secret: the yellow headers are actually links. Funny, I was wondering why some headers got to play on the “A” team (yellow font) while the others seemed to be permanently benched (grey font). I still don’t know the answer (but I can guess). Usability challenges: scannability (again), breaking your own convention, and category confusion.

Third, the categories in the global navigation bar aren’t linked to a top level page; their sole purpose is to open the navigation menu. Visitors who want to see all of IBM’s solutions, products, or services must hunt down the “all [insert site area]” link hidden in the blizzard of links. Oh, and support? Forget it. There is no “all” link in this panel. Bottom line, customers must know their destination or be in the know about the yellow header trick. Usability challenges: scannability (yet again), confusion, and inept zone access.

Fourth, visitors have to click on a link in the global navigation bar to open the panel, but if they let their pointer slip, this panel it will slap shut faster than a thousand pound door. This not only violates the current “click to open, click to close” convention; it also creates a rousing game of “now you see it, now you don’t” while the visitor figures out how to drive the menu. Usability challenges: common conventions, missed expectations, and general confusion (again).

From one perspective, I could argue that these issues are first experience nits that regular users will learn to work around. That might be true. But then there’s my final gripe.

Sometimes the IBM.com home page behaves like a Whirling Dervish. Here, the culprit is the marriage between the page’s navigation panel and the F1 feature. Select a panel to the right while the feature graphic is doing its thing and you’ll feel like you’ve ended up in a Tea Cup at Disneyland. Here, I agree with Marty. It’s a good idea to have Dramamine in your Web surfing kit. Usability challenges: breaking common conventions (again) and too many moving parts.

In the final analysis, I want to like IBM.com’s new mega-menu. I really, really do. But, every time I take it for a (open, read, close) spin I wonder what value I’m getting for all the work, time, and effort it takes to get what I need and go where I want to go. For this reason, I have to give IBM.com’s new mega-menu a reluctant Don’t Bother rating. Think of it as an opportunity for other sites to learn from IBM.com and do it better.

Other Stuff to Do:

Read how Cisco.com’s Support mega-menu raises the bar—again

Subscribers can check out the related case study in the siteIntelligence Case Studies Library. If you are a subscriber, click here (login required).

If you are not a subscriber you can learn more about this service here.