IA

Why navigation is not information architecture

Navigation is the surface. Information architecture is the structure underneath that actually determines whether users can find what they need.

Why reworking menus rarely fixes findability on its own, and why the real problem usually sits in how the system is organised underneath.

16 October 20245 min read

In short

Why reworking menus rarely fixes findability on its own, and why the real problem usually sits in how the system is organised underneath.

Why navigation changes often fail to solve the problem

is just the surface. is everything underneath it.

You can usually spot when the two have been confused because the same problems keep coming back. Users still can't find things, they still hesitate, they still take longer routes than expected, and the instinct is to go back and adjust the again. Rename something. Move it. Add another option. It becomes a cycle. Teams go through multiple of navigation without ever addressing the actual issue. Each looks slightly different, sometimes even slightly better, but the experience doesn't fundamentally change. The friction is still there, just in a slightly different place.

Navigation does not define how a system works. It only exposes the structure underneath it.

Why the structure underneath matters more

doesn't define how a works. It only exposes it. If the underlying structure is unclear, inconsistent, or built around the wrong logic, no amount of navigation will fix that. At best, you make it marginally easier to move around a broken system. At worst, you add more complexity in an attempt to compensate for it.

I've worked on where the looked perfectly reasonable at first glance. The labels made sense, the wasn't obviously flawed, and everything felt like it was where you'd expect it to be. But when you followed a journey through the system, things started to break down. Content wasn't grouped in a way that supported the task. Related information lived in completely separate areas. The same concept appeared in different places with slightly different language. The navigation wasn't the problem. It was just reflecting it.

Key takeaway

If users cannot find things, the issue is often not the menu itself. It is how the system has been organised underneath.

What changes when you focus on architecture instead

Once you stop looking at as the solution and start looking at the structure underneath, the focus shifts completely. Instead of asking how do we label this, you start asking: what actually belongs together? What are users trying to do here? What needs to happen before something else makes sense? Those are questions — and they're much harder to answer, because they require you to step away from how the organisation is set up and focus entirely on how users approach the problem.

On the NHS work, there were multiple and a constant effort to improve by adjusting menus. New labels, new groupings, new entry points. But the underlying structure hadn't changed, so users were still having to work things out for themselves. Once the focus shifted away from navigation and onto structure, things started to change. Good navigation feels clear because the structure behind it makes sense. Bad navigation feels confusing because it's trying to make sense of something that doesn't.

Written by Andy Scott

Strategic design, UX and digital transformation thinking from real projects.

LET'S WORK TOGETHER

Ready to improve your product?

UX, research and product leadership for teams tackling complex digital services. The work usually starts where things have become harder than they need to be: unclear journeys, inconsistent products, competing priorities, or teams trying to move forward without a clear direction. I help simplify the problem, shape the right next step, and turn complexity into something people can actually use.

Previous feedback

Will Parkhouse

Senior Content Designer

01/20