The 3-click rule: why the number of clicks is the wrong measure

• The 3-click rule is an unofficial rule: every page should be reachable in no more than three clicks.
• Who came up with the rule is unknown. The oldest written trace NN/g found is Zeldman’s 2001 book, and even that describes the rule as an already widespread idea.
• In 2003, Joshua Porter looked at 620 tasks by 44 users. No more people gave up at the third click than later.
• In 2019, NN/g explicitly declared the rule false. Its advice: make labels clearer instead of counting clicks.

The story: where does the rule come from?

The rule is simple: no page should be more than three clicks from the homepage. Behind it is the assumption that users give up if they don’t find anything in three clicks.

There is also a softer variant. According to it, only the most important information should be within three clicks. NN/g writes that designers often apply the rule to information architecture, that is, the website menu, and sometimes to forms and wizards that move step by step.

Joshua Porter wrote in 2003 that the rule had been around nearly as long as the web itself. Until then, it had hardly been questioned.

What role does Zeldman play?

The rule’s name often comes up together with Jeffrey Zeldman. Porter quotes a passage from Zeldman’s book Taking Your Talent to the Web that describes the rule. The book presents it as a principle based on the way people use the web.

Page Laubheimer of NN/g looks at this book too. He writes that the oldest written source he could find is this 2001 book. But the book doesn’t invent the rule. It mentions an already widespread concept and presents no data.

I haven’t read the book itself. So I only report what Zeldman says as far as these two articles report it. I found no source that shows who first stated the rule.

Porter’s test: 8,000 clicks

Joshua Porter tests the rule with data in his article “Testing the Three-Click Rule” of April 16, 2003. The article is now on the Center Centre website. According to his author bio, Porter worked for five years as a research consultant at UIE (User Interface Engineering).

In the study, 44 users attempted 620 tasks. More than 8,000 clicks were analyzed. Each task was marked as a success or a failure, and users rated their satisfaction after each task.

Results

Question	Porter’s finding
Do users give up at the third click?	No. The likelihood of quitting after three clicks was no higher than after 12 clicks.
Are successful tasks shorter?	No. Successful and unsuccessful tasks had the same distribution of lengths.
After how many clicks do tasks end?	Only at 15 clicks were 80% of tasks completed.
How long is the longest path?	Some users visited as many as 25 pages before they ended their task.
Do fewer clicks make users more satisfied?	No. The share of unsatisfied users was between 46% and 61% at every task length.

Porter’s conclusion is short: fewer clicks don’t make users more satisfied. What matters to users is whether they find what they’re looking for.

The article also includes an honest caveat. In an earlier e-commerce study by the team, users who visited more pages bought less. But the ones who failed were mainly those who clicked “Back” again and again. The team wasn’t sure whether the problem was the number of clicks or straying from the right path.

NN/g’s verdict: the rule is false

Sixteen years later, on August 11, 2019, Page Laubheimer of NN/g took up the topic again. The title is unambiguous: “The 3-Click Rule for Navigation Is False”.

According to Laubheimer, the rule has not been supported by data in any published study. Nor is three a magical threshold after which users suddenly get frustrated. He explains why counting clicks is misleading:

• How many clicks are needed depends on the complexity of the task. A single number doesn’t fit every task.
• Not all clicks are equal. Loading a new page takes longer than expanding an accordion.
• The number of clicks doesn’t show the mistakes, misunderstandings and confusion users run into along the way.

The article also points out a contradiction. The three-click target pushes designers toward a great many top-level categories. At the same time, there is another rule, also without data, that says the main menu should have no more than 7 categories. Anyone trying to meet both is stuck between two poor options.

NN/g’s example is NYC.gov, the website of New York City. Reporting a broken water meter takes 3 clicks. But the last link, “Water Meter Complaint”, is the 133rd link in its list. On paper, the rule is met, yet the user still has to search through a long list.

There is a clear sentence on speed too: 3 clicks that each have a long load time lead to a worse experience than 5 clicks that load quickly.

Source check: what we know and what we don’t

On this page, I only report what is in the two articles I opened and read. The table shows which claims are established and which are unclear.

Topic	Status	Note
Who first stated the rule	Unknown	The oldest written trace NN/g found is Zeldman’s 2001 book. The book describes the rule as a widespread belief.
Data supporting the rule	None	According to NN/g, no published study supports the rule.
Scope of Porter’s study	Known	44 users, 620 tasks, more than 8,000 clicks. Author and date are known.
Which websites were tested	Unknown	Porter’s article doesn’t name the websites tested.
How the tasks were chosen	Unknown	The article doesn’t describe how the tasks were chosen.
Do fewer clicks not matter at all?	Open question	In Porter’s e-commerce study, long paths went along with fewer purchases. A cause-and-effect link wasn’t shown.

Porter’s study is a single study with the websites of 2003. Applying its result one to one to today’s mobile apps wouldn’t be right.

The direction is clear all the same. There is no data supporting the rule, but there is data contradicting it. That’s why I see the 3-click rule not as a yardstick but as a myth.

Mini test: two menus, one product

Look for the same product in two different menus. Menu A is shallow: you reach the product in three clicks at most, but the labels are vague. Menu B is deeper: it takes four clicks, but every label says what’s inside.

It works with the keyboard too: Tab to an option and press Enter. As soon as you reach a product list, a message tells you whether you’re in the right place.

Mini test

Task: find the robot vacuum in both menus.

Menu A: shallow, vague labels

You reach the product in 3 clicks at most.

• Living
  • Smart Living: Smart bulb, Robot vacuum (target), Air purifier
  • Hobbies: Sewing machine, Paint set, Camping chair
  • Sports: Treadmill, Dumbbell set, Yoga mat
• Tech
  • Smart devices: Smartwatch, Smart plug, Security camera
  • Audio and video: Headphones, Speaker, Projector
  • Computers: Laptop, Keyboard, Monitor
• Home & Style
  • Home helpers: Iron, Cordless vacuum, Drying rack
  • Decor: Floor lamp, Rug, Mirror
  • Kitchen: Coffee maker, Blender, Sandwich maker
• Deals
  • Picks of the week: Thermos, Headphones, Desk lamp
  • Outlet: Backpack, Storage jar, Bluetooth speaker

Menu B: deep, clear labels

It takes 4 clicks to reach the product.

• Electronics
  • Phones and accessories: Smartphone, Charger, Phone case
  • Computers and tablets: Laptop, Tablet, Keyboard
  • TV, audio and video: TV, Headphones, Speaker
• Home and kitchen
  • Household appliances
    • Vacuums and cleaning: Cordless vacuum, Robot vacuum (target), Carpet cleaner
    • Irons and steamers: Steam iron, Ironing board, Steam station
    • Heating and cooling: Fan, Space heater, Dehumidifier
  • Kitchen appliances: Coffee maker, Blender, Sandwich maker
  • Furniture: Bookcase, Chair, Coffee table
• Sports and outdoors
  • Fitness: Treadmill, Dumbbell set, Yoga mat
  • Camping: Tent, Camping chair, Thermos
• Books and hobbies
  • Books: Novel, Children’s book, Cookbook
  • Crafts: Sewing machine, Paint set, Yarn

I built both menus myself; they don’t come from any real website. Every button press counts as a click, Back included. The result depends on your guesses, so it isn’t a measurement.

If your guess in menu A is right the first time, you’re done in 3 clicks. If it isn’t, every wrong branch costs you two more clicks: one in, one back. “Smart devices” and “Home helpers” look at least as plausible as “Smart Living”.

Menu B needs four clicks, but you hardly have to go back. At every step, the label tells you that you’re on the right path. That is exactly the strong information scent NN/g recommends.

My note

When a team says “everything is in three clicks” about its menu, I first ask which task they mean. A number people talk about without knowing how many steps which task needs doesn’t point the team anywhere.

In menu discussions, the number of clicks is easy to measure, so it gets talked about a lot. Whether a label is understandable, on the other hand, only shows in a test with real users. I think that’s why the rule lives on: it’s convenient.

I agree with a thought near the end of Porter’s article. The rule is well-intentioned: it may help designers focus on the information users need. The problem is that the intention is tied to a wrong number.

The lesson for today

Measure getting lost instead of clicks. How often someone goes back during a task says more than the number of clicks.

Write labels in your users’ language

NN/g recommends giving menu items names with strong information scent and avoiding vague, unfamiliar or branded terms. A section like “Living” or “Discover” doesn’t say what’s underneath.

Show where people are

A deep structure isn’t a problem as long as users know where they are. NN/g recommends breadcrumbs and local subnavigation for this. For multistep paths, NN/g also advises clear landing pages or navigation hubs at key points. These pages make it easy to move sideways to sibling pages in the same category.

Put the most common tasks up front

Don’t try to fit every page into three clicks. Identify the most important information-seeking tasks and link to them from the homepage and other important pages.

Keep pages fast

A click costs as much as the wait after it. According to NN/g, three slow clicks can be worse than five fast ones.

Replace the assumption with a test

You won’t see whether your menu works at the meeting table; you have to test it with users. Give a few users a real task and note where they go back. I describe how to set up the test in the guide to usability testing.

If you want to see where your own menu loses users, I can review the flow: UX audit for menus and navigation.