The question of what alternatives to use for navigation that would otherwise “crowd” or “confuse” things can only be answered on a case by case basis. For example – are the navigation elements you need to make available, or are they elements you “think” you need to make available?

If, for example, we're talking about links to various filters in a site section, or a different sorting structure, and you need to eliminate them to reduce duplicate content conflicts, then whatever method you use needs to be one that helps to most likely ensure the search engines don't make use of them.

While Javascript used to be a sound method, at SMX Advanced this past month, Matt Cutts specifically stated that Google is “getting better” at reading links in Javascript. Whether they can do so well enough that this is no longer a considered method, I don't know. Flash used to be a complete block to all things Google, and I believe it still is. Yet since last year, Google and Adobe have partnered in an effort for Google to be able to tap text within Flash files. So for the moment, Flash navigation MAY be a safe option, since links are actionscript. AJAX may, in fact, be the best option. Yet since Google is continually marching down the path of discovery methods, you may actually need to experiment.

If it turns out that you only “think” you need to keep that portion of your navigation, a more detached review may determine that you can do away with it. Again, though, with proper experimentation and testing.

I appreciate your comment. As I stated in the opening of the article, I, personally, do not profess to be an information architecture specialist. As such, I may be way off in my understanding.

Yet I do still believe that site navigation is one aspect of a much broader information architecture practice, just like where you place your doors and windows in a home is part of the overall architectural plan of a building. The location, size, and number of those doors and windows determines the flow of traffic (humans, pets, air, light) in that building just as the location, frequency, and number of links determines the flow of traffic and secondarily, search ranking value, on your web site.

I may be high as a kite in my thinking. However some of the most well respected IA professionals in the world agree with my thinking. Louis Rosenfeld, whom i reference in my “for more information” section above is just one of those people.

I also would like to refer to Princeton University's Guide To Creating Information Architecture and Content http://www.princeton.edu/communications/service… page 8 “What is information architecture” –

Information architecture (IA) refers to the structure or organization of your website.
It describes the ways in which the different pages of your site relate to one another
and ensures information is organized in a consistent and predictable way on each
page. It involves steps such as:
• assessing existing and needed content,
• organizing the pages,
• providing clues to help use the site efficiently, and
• developing navigational structure.

And finally, I refer to the Information Architecture glossary, as created by Kat Hagedorn of Argus Associates, and as referenced at the Information Architecture Institute http://www.iainstitute.org, in the “Introduction to Information Architecture” section of their library.

From Kat's glossary:

Browsing. See also: contextual browsing, hierarchical browsing,
navigating, searching, supplemental browsing. The process of users
following paths through a site that results in the retrieval of specific content
objects. The three main types of browsing are hierarchical (accessing the
primary path through the site), supplemental (accessing adjunct views of the
site) and contextual (access to related content objects in the site). Users who
browse may have less definite ideas of their information needs than those who
search.

Navigating. See also: browsing, searching. The process of users interacting
with a site to effectively fulfill their information needs. Users navigate sites by
searching and browsing for content objects.

Navigational elements. See also: contextual browsing, hierarchical
browsing, searching, supplemental browsing. The page-level pieces of a
site interface. The global navigational element is consistent across a site; it
allows users to browse hierarchically among content areas, and access search and supplemental browsing tools. Local navigational elements change between
content areas; they allow users to browse hierarchically within a content area.
Contextual navigational elements allow users to browse contextually.

If these references are incorrect, I apologize for including them here, as they are among the many resources I highly rely upon in my work.

Alan

Shari Thurow here. Thank you for your kind words about my latest article.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say something you might not want to hear. I think you are confusing information architecture with navigation (system) design. They are not the same thing, but they are related. Information architecture eventually becomes navigation design.

I know the 2 items overlap a lot, but people want to visualize site navigation so badly that they jump right into navigation design and structure without thinking about mental models of users. I understand that being a visual person myself. And I have swallowed my pride many times to listen and learn from people who are far more knowledgeable about IA than I am.

To be perfectly honest, the people to hire for information architecture services are probably not SEOs. I feel the same way about usability services. Kim, of course, is one of the few exceptions. Almost everything I read about IA and SEO is so full of errors …even the ranked articles…that it's embarrassing. And we SEOs wonder why we continue to have a bad reputation.

Information architecture and navigation structure/design are not the same thing. Something to remember…

It can be quite daunting to determine the best navigation for a site. The good news is we can always revisit and make changes as we evolve the site.

Right – just because you CAN link to every page everywhere, doesn't mean it's the best approach!

However, while there may be more people that fit that bill, there are still a significant number of people where the scientific path doesn't ignite the passion for this work as much, or at all. Which generally speaking, means for them (I/we), it's more visual / intuitive.

Then again, it may also be a case where highly tech preferring people are more vocal in their responses than visual/intuitive types who tend to be less likely to speak up afterward. :-)

Just my opinion…