Labeling principles govern how link labels, page titles, and other wayfinding elements communicate meaning. Create clear, easy-to-differentiate link labels. Make sure labels clearly convey what's at their destination. Clearly identify destination pages using terminology that matches the label that led there. Use familiar terminology throughout, the language your actual users use, not internal jargon. And create a consistent labeling system, so the same concept is always labeled the same way.
Search principles cover the internal search experience. Provide search as an alternative wayfinding path for people with disabilities, for whom navigation can be slow and laborious. Place the search box in a consistent location on every page. Check the spelling of search queries automatically. Ignore irrelevant words like articles and prepositions. Let users revise their query easily from the results page. Display the best results first, show the total number of results, and provide a helpful path forward when a search returns nothing.
A search box that returns zero results with no suggestion of what to try next doesn't just fail to help, it actively tells the user the information probably doesn't exist at all.
1: All three principles are violated together. "Wellness Resources" and "Health Resources" fail to use terminology familiar enough to be distinct, fail to form a consistent system where similar names mean similar things, and fail to clearly identify what's actually at each destination. This is a case where one bad labeling decision touches multiple principles at once rather than cleanly isolating to just one.
2: Place the search box in a consistent location. A search box that moves from page to page directly violates this principle, users can't build the habit of knowing where to look for it.
3: Both spelling and no-results guidance are violated together. A misspelled query should ideally be caught and corrected automatically. Even if it isn't caught, the site still fails the separate principle of providing a solution when a search returns nothing, the blank page with no explanation leaves the user with no path forward at all.
The missing dates, snippets, and source information violate the principle that search results should provide sufficient information scent. On a general-purpose site: this is a usability annoyance. On a health information site specifically: it's a trust and safety problem: without a date, a user can't tell whether medical guidance is current or years out of date; without a source, they can't judge whether the information is credible. A bare title gives someone no way to make that judgment before clicking through to potentially outdated or unreliable health guidance.This scenario illustrates something worth carrying forward: the same design failure can range from mildly annoying to genuinely harmful depending entirely on the domain. Information scent matters everywhere, but what's missing from that scent, and what it costs the user, is not the same on every kind of site.