Should labels be grammatically consistent?
There is a common information architecture myth that says: �Within a labeling system, labels should be grammatically consistent�. If one label uses a verb or is phrased as a question, all the labels should do the same.
Nonsense!
In the Bearbook 2, Peter and Lou write: �Within a specific labeling system, consider choosing a single syntactical approach and sticking with it.� (p. 94) Note the word �consider�.
Like in a game of whisper telephone, subtle guidelines easily get misunderstood. In this review of the first bearbook (1), the author writes: �Labels should be grammatically consistent; if some labels are nouns and others are verbs, readers will be confused.� Next we get people like Marcia Yudkin writing (PDF): �The words and phrases [for labels] should be grammatically parallel�, and gives a rather bad example: �What We Do, Who We Are, Our Portfolio, Contact Us� should, according to her, become: �What We Do, How We Do It, Who We Are, How to Reach Us�.
Recently, I was on a project where we had decided, during the analysis phase, to use labels with verbs. The entire IA was based on activities, so it seemed to make sense.
We soon ran into trouble though: using verbs throughout became harder and harder (sometimes it just didn�t make sense), and during usability tests, people had a hard time finding the right links. Making matters worse, convincing people that using verbs throughout in the labels wasn�t the right approach had become politically difficult.
I asked the SIGIA-L list for help, and soon learned I wasn�t the first person to struggle with this. Cynthia Ramlo wrote: �I worked on an application where this approach, during the analysis phase, had been agreed upon. It was very difficult to implement and it was not clear what verb would be associated with common actions (view, see, look, peruse).�
Donna had experienced this too: �I too have in the past tried the consistent grammatical structure - starting with verbs for tasks/actions. However, I always get to the point where it looks silly or the verbs start repeating, and I drop back to a combination of nouns & verbs.�
Peter Merholz also chipped in: �I've dealt with this on a number of projects in the past. My original inclination was that all labels (particular if there kin labels, such as items available in global navigation) should share grammatical structure -- if one is an action label, all should be action labels.
[�]
For me, the lesson was, verb, noun, action, thing, whatever, it kind of doesn't matter. What matters more is that you utilize words that are likely rattling around in your visitors' heads, words that resonate with them.� Amen.
Livia Labate expanded on that with some thoughts on labeling for international users: �One problem I can see depends on whether your target audience is a native speaker of English or if English is a second/third language. I just finished a course on the Semantics of the English language (so I could create better labels!) and my conclusion is (as Cynthia mentioned) that nouns (and adverbs) are more easily learned than verbs [�]�.
Going back to our earlier example, is �How we do it� truly a better label than �Portfolio�? Of course not! Keeping an eye on grammatical consistency can help when developing labels. But people look for certain key words, and if they don�t see them in your label, you are in trouble. Using labels that work for users is much more important than grammatical consistency in the labeling system.
(1) I couldn�t find my copy of the first bearbook, so I�m not sure what is said about labels in there. Anyone?