digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Blasting the Myth of the Fold

boxesandarrows.com — There is an astonishing amount of disbelief that the users of web pages have learned to scroll and that they do so regularly. Holding on to this disbelief – this myth that users won’t scroll to see anything below the fold – is doing everyone a great disservice, most of all our users.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 10001110101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+75Here I thought it was an article about Sunday's rerun of MythBusters.

    Seriously, digg itself is a good example: I was stunned the first time I ran into the "Show 51 - 75 of ### discussions" link.. I had become so used to scrolling to the bottom and skimming the comments that this abrupt stoppage confused the hell out of me.
    • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15There is a certain truth to the fact that if you don't make the stuff "above the fold" interesting, many people won't scroll down for more. And I must say I rarely click to get the next 50 comments in digg ... it's too bad, because I'm probably missing out on some good stuff.

      But my point is, to a certain extent, the idea that people won't scroll down for more may be true in general.
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I would have commented, but it was under the fold
    • NineSpoons, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://duggmirror.com/design/Blasting_the_Myth_of_the_Fold/
    • fadetoone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Hell, I didn't even know there was a next 50 comments link...
      • cloudyprison, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Not with the way so many people commit top post reply suckling. (Off Topic Replies to keep their comments on top.)
    • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19I dispise the "Show 51 - 75 of ### discussions" link. It should show all comments automatically.
      Beside that, half the time the damed thing doesn't work. I click it and it either does nothing or it only shows one more comment.
      • gavintlgold, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I believe it is to save digg bandwidth. Imagine how taxing we are to their servers already!
        • theholycow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Not half as taxing as digg is on my browser. No matter which browser I use, digg brings it to a screeching halt. Any other news site, I can open 50 tabs of stories in two minutes. Digg takes two minutes per tab and freezes the browser while it waits. This is true of various versions of Firefox and Opera running on 3 computers running Slackware, Ubuntu, and XP. One is on cable, one is on fiber, and one is a laptop that's on whatever the nearest wifi is.

          Am I the only one with this problem?
          • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2you're definitely not the only one.
            firefox goes ***** on digg threads. i constantly have to deal with the whole thing halting and getting boxes asking me to stop scripts.
      • angusm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Indeed. There's nothing as frustrating as going to a Digg comment page and using the browser's search-in-page command to see how many Diggs your latest glowing gem of wisdom has received ... and finding that it's not on the first page because it's buried somewhere below"Show 351-400 of #### discussions".

        Or so I've heard. Not that I'd ever do anything like that. Waste hours obsessively looking at past comment threads to see how many people have dugg me down? Never happen.
    • mapkinase, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I wish there is a way to know if the digg story is already marked by this mark of doom. "Show 51 - 75 of ### discussions" means that whatever you write in main comments after this point will be buried in the oblivion.
    • MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Even before the change, the further down your comment was on a page, the less chance it would have to be read.
      Now that comments are split up, no one reads them.
      The other annoyance is when you dig someone down, you cannot go back and read their comment, which sometimes is very annoying.
      And while I am still complaining, I think there should be an undo dig/bury feature because sometimes I slip and I mistakenly bury someone who I agree with and dig someone who I disagree.
  • SnowmanInTheSun, on 10/10/2007, -19/+3Congrats, you're a scroller...or you just have a ridiculously large screen!
    • RetroRufio, on 10/10/2007, -2/+417" screen @ 1280 x 1024
      Didn't have to scroll
      • SnowmanInTheSun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I was gonna change it to "high res screen", but comment posted too soon...thats what i get for running 1024x768
      • OrangeTide, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1a 12" screen at 1280x1024 has the same number of pixels as a 21" at the same resolution.

        I prefer 1152x864 or 1152x720. 1024x640 is kind of bleh.
  • Flipperbw, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19I don't think Snowman understands the comment system.
    • gmiley, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18Considering your inability to click "Reply", I would hazard a guess that neither do you...
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Evidently you don't understand the reply button?
    • OrangeTide, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I took it as irony.
    • mtheoryx83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Self-pwned FTW!!
  • Piggycow, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Sadly I first thought of mythbusters as well
  • Ty1erDurd3n, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2sites down already? lame, not cool... totally weak
    • dajuggernaut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3apparently you cant fold a server more than once
  • devboy00, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10It's dead Jim
  • dainbramage559, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11For my own clarity, could somebody explain to me what "the fold" or "the jump" is? I often come across phrases such as "explanation after the jump", yet never see something to consider a "jump".. or anything for that matter.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5From context of this article, I gather that "the fold" is the bottom of your screen. The point where you have to scroll down to continue reading.
      "The Jump" goes back to newspapers, when you see front page story with "continued on page B7" at the bottom. Nobody bothers to actually go to B7 and finish reading.
      For the web, a more appropriate analogy would be to actually read stories on Digg instead of just their description, or when some blogs (slashdot for example) have a "read more" button at the bottom of long posts. Can also refer to sites that have ads embedded in the middle of the article.

      But I've seen a lot of sites where it doesn't make sense. Maybe their RSS feed truncates at that point? Or maybe those bloggers just don't know what the term means.
      • mtheoryx83, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Or its the "read more" link that takes you to the full article? Just a thought.
    • tutivlahos, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I think "the jump" means the ads. After the jump = After the advertisement. No idea what the fold is...
      • kilooneniner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In newspapers jumps happen because of the ads. Stories are broken up so that ads can get more premium placement. It's really old school stuff though, not so relevant to the web really.
    • carcass350, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2For example you are on engadget or some other blog. They have a short paragraph or summary about the post. Then there is a link to the full article. That is the jump.
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"The fold" goes back to newspapers too. Stories above the fold are right there in your face, everyone sees them. Even if you don't buy a paper, you seeing the stories that are above the fold in the window of the newspaper machine. They're supposed to entice you to read the rest of the story (either below the fold or on a different page).

      I see "after the jump" mostly in blogs where the blog entry is just the intro. Then you have to click a link to bring up the full blog post - the rest of the story.
    • rusty0101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"After the Fold" usually means on this page, but beyond what you are probably seeing. If you read a newspaper while you are riding a bus, or sitting some place where you can't spread the paper out, the fold is where the editor expects the paper to be folded for your convenience. "after the fold' could be a separate column, or more often in the lower half of the page. Considering that the fold may be subject to extra friction some papers put a sort of a banner or possibly even an ad where the paper would fold, and like a jump you might think that when the column ends at this ad that there is no further information in the article.
    • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It a term that is taken from newspapers.

      When you see a newspaper lying on a rack, it's folded so you only see the top half of the front page. Stories that are lower on the page, or "below the fold" are considered less important because you won't see them unless you pick up the paper and unfold it. How this relates to a website: when you first visit a page, anything that doesn't display on your screen without you having to scroll down is considered "below the fold".

      When a story starts on page one and then says "Continued Page A4", the place where it continues on A4 is called the "jump" because the story has jumped to another page. How this relates to the web: a link at the bottom of a story that says "Continued on Page 2" that you have to click to see the rest of the story.
    • MedHead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The description of "the fold" is written in the article.
      • mtheoryx83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Digger, please. You know people can't be bothered to RTFA for the life of 'em.
  • Easty, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26Horizontally, on the other hand, stands no ***** chance.
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Requiring horizontal scroll is the second fastest way to get me to leave a website.

      The first is playing music in the background.
      • mtheoryx83, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Wouldn't need a horizontal scroll if you'd man up and get a modern monitor.
  • dkay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Good detailed article.

    If you haven't mastered scrolling yet, you aren't getting anything useful on the web. Imagine only seeing the first 1024 pixels of a Google search... that's crippling.
    • rusty0101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What? You're not using the 'I'm feeling lucky' button?
  • eatsushi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The biggest problems are those dinosaur thinking creative directors who are too big headed to realize what users want, typically in the ad industry. The only folds that are a problem in my opinion are the ones that hang over your belt.
    • kilooneniner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is dead on. When I worked for a newspaper the ad director couldn't figure out how to use his email. He couldn't ***** spell either. He was good at firing people though.
  • YoHenYo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I hope I'm above the fold.......
  • dafragsta, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3OMFG. Yeah, and saying that no one reads the part of the paper that's below the fold is doing everyone a great disservice as well.

    I challenge whoever wrote this BS to take a look at a heat map or the click rate of items below the fold. It's not about if a user does or doesn't scroll. It's about that valuable space that represents the very first thing a user sees when the page loads.
    • FujiwaraTofu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They DID take a look at a click rate study.
    • blueghozt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0also you must consider that click rates for ads are BOUND to be lower when below the fold as most scrollers are engaged in the content and not scrolling for ads to click or willing to leave the content just yet - so probably best to keep ads above the fold where possible or at the very bottom when content is finished and users are looking for where to go next (a very underrated ad slot methinks)....
  • AuroraAlpha, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Blasting the Myth of the Working Server
  • DivisibleByZero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13It's also annoying when they assume where "the fold" is. Not everyone uses the same resolution.
  • hamishmacdonald, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The original site is down, but as someone who writes copy for a living for an audience of busy entrepreneurs, let me assure you that people *do* skim like crazy, and I'm constantly having to remind myself to pare back my prose, and state my entire point at the very beginning (which, as someone who also writes novels, I find painful to do, giving away the ending first).

    Sites like Digg are the exception, I believe, because we actually get as much or more out of the banter back and forth as from the original article.

    One habit I find in my online reading -- and I don't know if anyone else shares this -- is that I'll read to *almost the end* of a piece, then drift away. I'm not sure what that's about, since I'm usually so close to finishing.

    I like to remind myself of something a marketing guru named Joe Polish says: "You can never be too long, just too boring."
    • AnonymousFan9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I wanted to read your comment but you didn't get to the point quick enough
    • MedHead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I did the "drift away" thing with the "fold" article linked above. I got about halfway through, figured I understood the point of the article (people read beyond the fold), mentally shrugged in boredom, and moved on.
    • mtheoryx83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Cliff's notes please?
  • dkay, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11FTA:
    The Above-the-Fold Myth

    We are all well aware that web design is not an easy task. There are many variables to consider, some of them technical, some of them human. The technical considerations of designing for the web can (and do) change quite regularly, but the human variables change at a slower rate. Sometimes the human variables change at such a slow rate that we have a hard time believing that it happens.

    This is happening right now in web design. There is an astonishing amount of disbelief that the users of web pages have learned to scroll and that they do so regularly. Holding on to this disbelief – this myth that users won’t scroll to see anything below the fold – is doing everyone a great disservice, most of all our users.

    First, a definition: The word “fold” means a great many things, even within the discipline of design. The most common use of the term “fold” is perhaps used in reference to newspaper layout. Because of the physical dimensions of the printed page of a broadsheet newspaper, it is folded. The first page of a newspaper is where the “big” stories of the issue are because it is the best possible placement. Readers have to flip the paper over (or unfold it) to see what else is in the issue, therefore there is a chance that someone will miss it. In web design, the term “fold” means the line beyond which a user must scroll to see more contents of a page (if it exists) after the page displays within their browser. It is also referred to as a “scroll-line.”

    Screen performance data and new research indicate that users will scroll to find information and items below the fold. There are established design best practices to ensure that users recognize when a fold exists and that content extends below it1. Yet during requirements gathering for design projects designers are inundated with requests to cram as much information above the fold as possible, which complicates the information design. Why does the myth continue, when we have documented evidence that the fold really doesn’t matter in certain contexts?

    Once upon a time, page-level vertical scrolling was not permitted on AOL. Articles, lists and other content that would have to scroll were presented in scrolling text fields or list boxes, which our users easily used. Our pages, which used proprietary technology, were designed to fit inside a client application, and the strictest of guidelines ensured that the application desktop itself did not scroll. The content pages floated in the center of the application interface and were too far removed from the scrollbar location for users to notice if a scrollbar appeared. Even if the page appeared to be cut off, as current best practices dictate, it proved to be such an unusual experience to our users that they assumed that the application was “broken.” We had to instill incredible discipline in all areas of the organization that produced these pages – content creation, design and development – to make sure our content fit on these little pages.

    As AOL moved away from our proprietary screen technology to an open web experience, we enjoyed the luxury of designing longer (and wider) pages. Remaining sensitive to the issues of scrolling from our history, we developed and employed practices for designing around folds:


    * We chose as target screen resolutions those used by the majority of our users.
    * We identified where the fold would fall in different browsers, and noted the range of pixels that would be in the fold “zone.”
    * We made sure that images and text appeared “broken” or cut off at the fold for the majority of our users (based on common screen resolutions and browsers).
    * We kept the overall page height to no more than 3 screens.


    But even given our new larger page sizes, we were still presented with long lists of items to be placed above the fold – lists impossible to accommodate. There were just too many things for the limited amount of vertical space.

    For example, for advertising to be considered valuable and saleable, a certain percentage of it must appear above the 1024×768 fold. Branding must be above the fold. Navigation must be above the fold – or at least the beginning of the list of navigational choices. (If the list is well organized and displayed appropriately, scanning the list should help bring users down the page.) Big content (the primary content of the site) should begin above the fold. Some marketing folks believe that the actual number of data points and links above the fold is a strategic differentiator critical to business success. Considering the limited vertical real estate available and the desire for multiple ad units and functionality described above, an open design becomes impossible.

    And why? Because people think users don’t scroll. Jakob Nielsen wrote about the growing acceptance and understanding of scrolling in 19972^, yet 10 years later we are still hearing that users don’t scroll.

    Research debunking this myth is starting to pop up, and a great example of this is the report available on ClickTale.com3^. In it, the researchers used their proprietary tracking software to measure the activity of 120,000 pages. Their research gives data on the vertical height of the page and the point to which a user scrolls. In the study, they found that 76% of users scrolled and that a good portion of them scrolled all the way to the bottom, despite the height of the screen. Even the longest of web pages were scrolled to the bottom. One thing the study does not capture is how much time is spent at the bottom of the page, so the argument can be made that users might just scan it and not pay much attention to any content placed there.

    This is where things get interesting.

    I took a look at performance data for some AOL sites and found that items at the bottom of pages are being widely used. Perhaps the best example of this is the popular celebrity gossip website TMZ.com. The most clicked on item on the TMZ homepage is the link at the very bottom of the page that takes users to the next page. Note that the TMZ homepage is often over 15000 pixels long – which supports the ClickTale research that scrolling behavior is independent of screen height. Users are so engaged in the content of this site that they are following it down the page until they get to the “next page” link.

    Maybe it’s not fair to use a celebrity gossip site as an example. After all, we’re not all designing around such tantalizing guilty-pleasure content as the downfall of beautiful people. So, let’s look at some drier content.
    For example, take AOL News Daily Pulse. You’ll notice the poll at the bottom of the page – the vote counts are well over 300,000 each. This means that not only did folks scroll over 2000 pixels to the bottom of the page, they actually took the time to answer a poll while they were there. Hundreds of thousands of people taking a poll at the bottom of a page can easily be called a success.

    But, you may argue, these pages are both in blog format. Perhaps blogs encourage scrolling more than other types of pages. I’m not convinced, since blog format is of the “newest content on top” variety, but it may be true. However, looking at pages that are not in blog format, we see the same trend. On the AOL Money & Finance homepage, users find and use the modules for recent quotes and their personalized portfolios even when these modules are placed well beneath the 1024×768 fold.

    Another example within AOL Money & Finance is a photo gallery entitled Top Tax Tips. Despite the fact that the gallery is almost 2500 pixels down the page, this gallery generates between 200,000 and 400,000 page views depending on promotion of the Taxes page.

    It is clear that where a given item falls in relation to the fold is becoming less important. Users are scrolling to see what they want, and finding it. The key is the content – if it is compelling, users will follow where it leads.
    When does the fold matter?

    The most basic rule of thumb is that for every site the user should be able to understand what your site is about by the information presented to them above the fold. If they have to scroll to even discover what the site is, its success is unlikely.

    Functionality that is essential to business strategy should remain (or at least begin) above the fold. For example, if your business success is dependent on users finding a particular thing (movie theaters, for example) then the widget to allow that action should certainly be above the fold.

    Screen height and folds matter for applications, especially rapid-fire applications where users input variables and change the display of information. The input and output should be in very close proximity. Getting stock quotes is an example: a user may want to get four or five quotes in sequence, so it is imperative that the input field and the basic quote information display remain above the fold for each symbol entered. Imagine the frustration at having to scroll to find the input field for each quote you wanted.

    Where IS the fold?

    Here is perhaps the biggest problem of all. The design method of cutting-off images or text only works if you know where the fold is. There is a lot of information out there about how dispersed the location of fold line actually is. Again, a very clear picture of this problem is shown on ClickTale. In the same study of page scrolling, fold locations of viewed screens were captured, based on screen resolution and browser used. It’s a sad, sad thing, but the single highest concentration of fold location (at around 600 pixels) for users accounted for less than 10% of the distribution. This pixel-height corresponds with a screen resolution of 1024×768. Browser applications take away varying amounts of vertical real estate for their interfaces (toolbars, address fields, etc). Each browser has a slightly different size, so not all visitors running a resolution of 1024×768 will have a fold that appears in the same spot. In the ClickTale study, the three highest fold locations were 570, 590 and 600 pixels – apparently from different browsers running on 1024×768 screens. But the overall distribution of fold locations for the entire study was so varied that even these three sizes together only account for less than 26% of visits. What does all this mean? If you pick one pixel location on which to base the location of the fold when designing your screens, the best-case scenario is that you’ll get the fold line exactly right for only 10% of your visitors.
    So what do we do now?

    Stop worrying about the fold. Don’t throw your best practices out the window, but stop cramming stuff above a certain pixel point. You’re not helping anyone. Open up your designs and give your users some visual breathing room. If your content is compelling enough your users will read it to the end.

    Advertisers currently want their ads above the fold, and it will be a while before that tide turns. But it’s very clear that the rest of the page can be just as valuable – perhaps more valuable – to contextual advertising. Personally, I’d want my ad to be right at the bottom of the TMZ page, forget the top.

    The biggest lesson to be learned here is that if you use visual cues (such as cut-off images and text) and compelling content, users will scroll to see all of it. The next great frontier in web page design has to be bottom of the page. You’ve done your job and the user scrolled all the way to the bottom of the page because they were so engaged with your content. Now what? Is a footer really all we can offer them? If we know we’ve got them there, why not give them something to do next? Something contextual, a natural next step in your site, or something with which to interact (such as a poll) would be welcome and, most importantly, used.
    References

    1 Jared Spool’s UIE Brain Sparks, August 2, 2006:
    Utilizing the Cut-off Look to Encourage Users To Scroll

    2 Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox, December 1, 1997:
    Changes in Web Usability Since 1994

    3 ClickTale’s Research Blog, December 23, 2006: Unfolding the Fold
    • jhnewt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I'm not going to read that all. It's too long and requires too much scrolling.
      • mapkinase, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It needs jumps. Like "jump outahere".
    • mtheoryx83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's alotta text.
    • tony23, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1FTA???

      more like TA
  • MtDewaholic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I refuse to scroll horizontally. I hate websites that think I am going to expand my browser to take up the entire width of my screen.
    • geneticlemon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Agreed. It's far less intuitive to scroll left and right than up and down. I've seen pretty ambitious webpages completely ruined because they thought horizontal scroll was "prettier" ... it's not. It's poor design. Take a friggin' programming class, for pete's sake.
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It's even worse when a site resizes your browser window for you.

      (yes, I'm aware that there are settngs and things to prevent that, but the fact that they even try in the first place is bad).
  • attorneystore, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0i just had this conversation in my C.O.O.'S office....Strange
    change is good
  • TheLD, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Mirror: http://www.dotcache.com/http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/blasting-the-myth-of
  • Treoinmypocket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1reminds me of the advertising myth that people won't read a lot of copy...completely debunked by the 7 page Kiplinger Letter. Or that of the fact that people won't watch more than a 30 second commercial, listen to a song over 3mins and 5 seconds, watch a movie over two hours....

    As with all these things it is COMPELLING CONTENT that determines interest. Difficult to interact with is second of course but scrolling isn't difficult or bothersome if the content is compelling
  • dafragsta, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Why does the myth continue, when we have documented evidence that the fold really doesn’t matter in certain contexts?"

    Why does the myth of the polar bear persist when they really don't exist in certain environments where other bears might live?

    Actually, here's one better. It's probably better to ask why does the myth of oxygen persist when it really doesn't matter throughout most of the universe.
    • thailand1972, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah, I'd like to see links to articles that state "users never scroll, put everything above the fold". What I've read before is what the article states : get your point across above the fold, elaborate below it. Their "myth" is just something they've made up to create an article about it and make common sense sound "new" and "controversial"
    • OrangeTide, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There is no statistically significant evidence of intelligent life anywhere in the universe.
  • thailand1972, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The article contradicts itself here:-

    "The most basic rule of thumb is that for every site the user should be able to understand what your site is about by the information presented to them above the fold. If they have to scroll to even discover what the site is, its success is unlikely."

    This is why the fold is still important, and users WON'T scroll down if the content ABOVE the fold doesn't grab their attention - they're just going to click back to view more search engine results.

    Of course users scroll, this isn't new information. But they'll only do so if they're hooked by what's above the fold (talking about first time visitors who are scouring several competing sites).

    I think the article is working on the premise that there are people out there that believe people NEVER scroll down a page (which is a ridiculous premise, frankly).

  • Ubermunkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah okay I don't doubt it for a second that users can and will scroll. What the article doesn't talk about it (and what would be far more telling) is how quickly the user got to, or discovered, a piece of content being at the top vs right at the bottom of the page below the 'virtual fold'. It's just plain common sense if you can immediately see it without having to look for it you're more likely to click on it.

    FTA "In the study, they found that 76% of users scrolled and that a good portion of them scrolled all the way to the bottom, despite the height of the screen. Even the longest of web pages were scrolled to the bottom."

    Which means, what 30% or more didn't actually make it to the bottom of the page. Would you be keen on eliminating that higher percentage of your viewers from seeing something at the bottom of the page. Probably not....
  • saltinekracka20, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Are we living in the 90's still? Maybe the "fold theory" was relative 10 years ago. PLAUSABLE
  • Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4There's a huge demographics gap in what this author is talking about. I've taken some course work on accessibility (not just for websites ) and something which I found very interesting was that low literacy readers CAN'T SKIM text. That means scrolling is very difficult for anyone that has low literacy, because they have to either literary re-read everything, or find some way to hold thheir place. Now you may be thinking "come on how many people are low-literacy", but this can actually be a fairly large number of people depending on your audience. If you're designing for accessibility, the fold is very important.
  • davideparker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0But the text of the article doesn't flow if you make the window narrower!
    WTF?
  • pilgrim23, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"We are all well aware that web design is not an easy task" Yeah, not like that breeze called...... programming say in...Assembler.
  • cybermort, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1ewww she is fat.HUGO size fat
  • sylox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ever since i got a mouse with the scroll wheel(about a bajillion years ago) vertical scrolling was no problem to me. When i scroll i don't even realize im scrolling. Its just a natural thing now. Horizontal scrolling however is the most evil thing in the world.
  • f4nt0m4s, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4pictures of naked women have shown me the way of scrolling

    we need more porn seminars
  • whiteyMcBrown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I've been saying this to friends for a very long time. In fact, I would say that creating a site where you have to scroll down is advantageous. Content is king, when it comes to bringing me back to a site, and if there seems to be a lot of content, then I'll be more likely to return. This goes for pretty much any site. I'm not a big fan of the late 90s Flash page style (although I do miss some of the uniqueness of sites that's been missing since web 2.0)
  • ogletree, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This article is wrong. All you have to do is run a heatmap test on your site. You will see everybody clicks on things above the fold. There are certain types of sites where users might read below the fold but that is rare. It does not matter if some people read beyond the fold you have to make the site to catch the majority that don't.
  • geuisteses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I didn't read anything that was written after the end of the screen. Too lazy to roll the scroll wheel on my mouse
  • bradleyland, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You know why this BS is still floating around:

    * Good advice starts with the experts. The guys in the trenches. They know what works, but they don't always get to make the decisions.
    * The decision makers will eventually hear a piece of advice enough times for it to stick in their brain, and then it becomes design dogma. They don't care if it's true, they only care that they're right, or that they appear to know what they're talking about.

    I'm still approached on a regular basis about stupid SEO stuff like keyword stuffing using white on white text. As if this is some pioneering technique that no one, in all the years of the existence of the web, has thought of yet.

    It always baffles me that companies will hire smart people, only to ignore them. You want to know why companies like Google are a success? Because they were started by smart people who know how to trust other smart people.
    • thailand1972, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Seriously, I have not spoken with anyone in this millennium who thinks white text on a white background or keyword spamming is a good SEO technique - nobody. I don't know who you speak to or what websites you read, but I luckily avoid such people/websites. I've never met anyone who says "nobody ever reads below the fold".

      This thread is dumb - it's full of people trying to polarise opinion by making up people who don't exist who spout crazy views.
  • omelette, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't know if my tendencies are completely odd or what but I am far more likely to follow a link or click an ad at the end of a page. When I arrive at a page, I usually arrive with purpose (ie. read an article) but when I've reached the articles conclusion I may forget what initially led me there or what I was doing before I arrived and in that moment I am most susceptible to advertisements and/or random headline links.
  • Kinsbane, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I agree on the principle of the fold, but I'm really tired of reading a blog that tells me to, "hit the jump".
  • mapkinase, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Problem with "fold" is not problem with "fold", it is a problem of smooth scalability of fonts. When I hold the whole spread of the newspaper I surely cannot read the paragraph text, but I can easily read the headlines, that is where I zoom by folding the paper. So if you want to imitate natural process of reading your spread, it should be ZOOM out - ZOOM in instead of SCROLL in the dark unknown scary area of the rest of the spread.
  • Roedran, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There is no myth. It's a fact. I get input all the time from users of my company's sites to our salespeople. If it isn't in the top 1/3rd of the page/within a single twitch of the mouse wheel down, it isn't read or used. Our click throughs and heat maps bear this out, and the non-use of excellent materials by our staffers that are below the fold also proves this. I think it's pretty amazing that professionals can get away with saying "I refuse to scroll so redo your site and all content" -- all the while being babies and not using their scroll wheels. They say they don't have time. Exceptionally short-sighted and lazy, but that's life down in the Web dev. salt mines.
  • didoubleg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Kinda short, it just ended weird at: content creation, design and development – to make sure our content fit on these little pages. Thought there would be more but thats all i could see, whats this "scrolling thing"?
  • zdiggler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I have a habit of scrolling even before the page get loaded completely.
  • zigman91090, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Why do they use AOL as an example on an article to do with web designing?

  • haggie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+120"+ LCDs sure help too. no digg for being so ***** obvious.
  • o0joshua0o, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My 3.5 year old son has totally mastered scrolling. It's pop-up windows that give him a hard time. If you make a children's website, please don't include any kind of pop-up windows.
  • isntreal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't mind reading below the fold, however if the author decides to jabber on and over-compose by stretching out ideas and explaining obvious relations I do.
  • starkraving, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Interesting. "Personally, I’d want my ad to be right at the bottom of the TMZ page, forget the top." I take her meaning there to suggest that although ads placed *below* the "fold" will have less visibility, the visibility they do achieve will be more targeted, with a potentially higher click-through ratio. Presumably because the people that do scroll to the bottom of the page are more motivated than the casual skimmers. I wonder if there's any data on that as well.
  • wwwdot1jesdotus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Anyone else find it ironic that the screenshot is positioned along the fold?
  • oojamaflip2006, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Since this is at the bottom of the comments, I doubt anyone will read it. Nevertheless, I believe users of a website will scroll down any amount so long as they believe the information they are searching for is on that page. If you want your users to scroll down to the bottom of your webpages, you need perhaps to employ some social-engineering by letting the user know at the top of the page that the information/service they seek is actually on that page.
  • jhshukla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"The key is the content – if it is compelling, users will follow where it leads."
    duh! and another good piece of advice

    "The most basic rule of thumb is that for every site the user should be able to understand what your site is about by the information presented to them above the fold."

  • airship, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Burns: "You call this a lead? I'm into the second sentence and you haven't mentioned The Chronicle yet!"
    Hildy: "Okay, okay! I'll put it in the second paragraph."
    Burns: "You idiot! For twenty years I've tried to teach you how to write a lead! Nobody ever reads the second paragraph!"

    -From the movie and play 'The Front Page'. (Paraphrased because I couldn't find the script online.)

    Point is, this play/film was about a newspaperman in the 1930's. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
  • bubbadigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'd like to make a comment, but I don't want to scroll beyond the fold to do it....


    DUH !!!!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.