LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CHI-WEB Archives


CHI-WEB Archives

CHI-WEB Archives


CHI-WEB@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CHI-WEB Home

CHI-WEB Home

CHI-WEB  September 2001, Week 3

CHI-WEB September 2001, Week 3

Subject:

SUMMARY: Scrolling homepages

From:

Francois Jordaan <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Francois Jordaan <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:10:25 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (739 lines)

[ Sorry for the delay in posting the summary -- the listserv's 500-line
limit for posts (now removed, thanks WH) at first rejected it, and I had
further troubles trying to post it in 2 halves. But here is the whole thing
at last. fj. ]

Many responses to this topic (I have to post 2 summaries due to the 500-line
message length limit), although perhaps that's mostly a reflection of the
opinion-fraught "it depends" nature of the question. The discussion also
branched into scrolling pages in general (my original question just
considered the homepage.) Thanks to everyone who responded!

--My original question:--------------------------

I'm talking with a client who insists that their site homepage should fit in
the user's browser window, and not scroll vertically. It is a retail site,
although currently with mostly brochure content. I disagree with this
inflexible restriction. My argument:

- While I believe the most important content should be *visible* at the
lowest resolution specced, I do not believe content below the fold is
superfluous.

- The homepage has too many important tasks to fulfil to impose this
restriction on it. It will result merely in design that suffers from
miniaturisation or overcrowding. Or that discards necessary functionality.

- Content below the fold is one tap of the spacebar (or PageDown) away. Less
of a commitment and delay than clicking to a new page. Fine for content of
secondary importance.

- The restriction is very arbitrary. Even if we spec an 800x600 minimum
resolution, this does not take into account the unpredictability of actual
*window* size.

- Users with better systems than the lowest spec end up with a acres of
unused screen space. (Not that my goal is to *fill* all that space, but
space that could have been better utilised.)

- There are countless examples of good homepages that scroll:
http://www.eddiebauer.com/eb/default.asp
http://www.tesco.com/
http://www.1800flowers.com/
http://www.photopoint.com/

- OK, there are also good ones that don't:
http://www.gap.com/
http://www.webmd.com/
http://www.ibm.com/

Do other people agree with me? Any recommendations for a more convincing
argument? Do anyone know of studies that back me up or contradict me?

-Summary of
responses:---------------------------------------------------------------

[Christian Hagel-S°rensen]
I agree with you. I have yet to see/read research indicating that people
don't scroll. Of course people will be more tempted to scroll if they cn
clearly see that there is more content. But that  is a graphics design
question and should be quite easy to design to.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Jenny Blackburn]
User Interface Engineering wrote an article (you can find it at
http://world.std.com/~uieweb/scrollin.htm) discussing the fact that users
SAY they don't like to scroll, but in actuality, studies show that they
don't mind it (yet another case of what users SAY being different from what
they actually DO).  Their research is backed up by what I've seen in almost
every study I've run on the web.

Take a look at this article (and show it to your client) -- it lists several
reasons to choose longer, scrolling pages rather than short pages that
require more linking.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Terie Clement]
it sounds like you're trying very hard to justify your opinion rather than
investigating tell-tale tendencies within the site's users groups.

i personally would agree with his/her thought - even though i'm web
professional, i'm a very lazy surfer... i very rarely scroll unless i'm
reading an article, and i do prefer to scroll for articles rather than have
them broken into chunks that i have to click to access (and b/c they may be
printed easier)

one way to get some solid data would be to recruit sample testers from your
clients' target users groups and have them view a variety of home page
options where info is organized either way and see what they find fastest

wouldn't need to be a major evaluation -- majority of time would be locating
your test participants -- but i bet you could run 5-6 tests in one day.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[christina wodtke]
I've found it's effective to go to media metrix and show how big the top ten
sites are.... business folks often react well to numbers.

the other thing I do is go to someone like Amazon and set the resolution to
640x480 with the browser standard set up (link bar, icons, etc) and show how
much space he has to make his point in. often clients new to the web don't
realize how variable the medium can be.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Walner Rebelo Amazonas]
I agree with you if the site you are developping has many contents, it's not
advisable to concentrate informations in an area only to avoid scroll, it
would become difficult for user to find informations. Only major
informations should be ina area withou scroll.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Jon Plummer]
For me, this debate has usually boiled down to answering the following
question: How tightly focused is our goal of what users will do when they
arrive at your homepage? If it is very tightly focused, as with Gap and
Banana Republic (pick a door), you may be able to get away with a small
homepage, but it puts more pressure on the few things you can show.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Paola Kathuria]
> I'm talking with a client who insists that their site homepage should fit
in
> the user's browser window, and not scroll vertically.

I'd respectfully ask them why they think it's important.  If it's
a design thing (they think it looks better), then you have an education
problem.  If it's because of things they've read, find out what it
is and deal with it (a debunking problem).

For myself, I'm choosing not to split up long articles into multiple
pages.  However, I think that the first screenful (550 x 375) of a *home*
page should include the site name, branding, site purpose (if it's not
in the logo in the name or tagline) and main section buttons.  This
addresses the "did I arrive at the right place?" question.  The
rest of the page can then be featured products, news summaries, what's
new, whatever.

It is interesting that many popular news sites have de-cluttered and
shortened their home pages due to the recent demand for news (BBC's
said something like "due to unprecedented public demand, we have
shortened the home page to contain only the most recent stories").

I still don't think that the actual objection has ever really been
with how *long* pages are but how much time it takes for something
useful/interesting to appear.   I started reading slashdot yesterday
and am dismayed that all replies to a thread are in a single table
(the one today was 690K) - they could easily have implemented this
as separate successive tables.  Designing with successive tables
(rather than a single-enclosing table) does mean there are some page
layouts that are not possible, but it's a worthwhile compromise, in
my opinion.

Short pages have become fashionable because people take the
800x600 figure literally, perhaps because they come from a 
background of designing for CD-ROM but mostly because visitors
get to be shown more ads if articles are split up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Scott Nelson]
I can't find any published research in my digital archives, so can only 
rely on past experience. I believe Don Norman has commented on this in 
some of his writings, and may be able to cite some research.

I spent some time in a single, small, nepotistic industry where I seemed 
to continually rebuild my first project (it was viewed as the industry's 
benchmark, in part because it was good but also because of the company's 
reputation.) This afforded me numerous opportunities to evaluate different 
home pages with the same goals but different executions.

Invariably, content that was visible on the home page without scrolling 
was visited much more frequently. In some cases, we had home pages that 
didn't scroll (the best option) but in other cases pressures required home 
pages that scrolled, with content that was no more superfluous than the 
rest of it.

So I don't think it's *necessary* to have all home page content fit on one 
page, I would definitely operate under the assumption that the majority of 
your users are not going to scroll. (Unless, of course, the majority of 
your users are highly active computer and Internet users.)

My best advice on the topic of the 'home page having too many important 
tasks' is to limit the tasks the home page has! I used to do this by 
creating sub-homepages for important areas, and providing links to them 
from the home page (as well as specific URLs for those that required 
it...) There's a tendency to shove too much content onto home pages, and 
this usually has the effect of confusing visitors before they've even done 
anything on your site.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Chris Jones]
This has always been a good question for us as well. To be honest we tend to
do things that don't require users to scroll. With the basic assumption that
the fewer interactions to buying the better.

I actually have a question about Eddie Bauer's site. Although I think it is
appealing and does do a few things well. It does suffer from strange
redundant navigation that takes up a good 50% of the home page. I'm
referring to the departments. If you use the menu bar MEN| women|Gear | boys
etc. they have menu items that do not match the merchandise sections below.
So the user may, if just looking at the page, never realize that they sell
men's outer wear or shoes for that matter.

We've found the same problems so I sympathize. For us it comes down to
aligning consistent rules against the whim of the merchandising manager. I
guess I'm not offering you much help, but it sounds like you trying to
manage conflicting input from the client. Let them battle it out. Maybe the
argument is your trying to put a round peg in a square hole.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Mark Kawano]
certain users know how to scroll and like it and certain users don't.
my only suggestion is to know thy user,  and try to do your own study on
them. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Geoffrey V. Brown]
We recently did some research that gauged user loss at website entry points
when different page formats were applied.  This test more or less measured
how receptive users were to staying on the site and drill deeper when
different page formats were used.

Basically what we found was that we were able to increase our user retention
between 20-30% by using pages that were about 1 1/4 in screen height at
800x600.  Pages that were longer had dramatically higher user loss.

Pages that also had a lot of graphics in the immediately viewable area in
the client browser also had higher rates of user loss.

Users also seemed to be more receptive to concise content and links that
attempted to qualify their intent.

This method doesn't address task success rates, of course.  We were able to
find that we could increase task success rates on our website by offering
supplemental navigation links to the pages that most often associated with
the user's goals.  These were most often displayed outside of the standard
navigation, and within the immediately viewable area in the client browser
window.

Really, I think the issue comes down to the way that these pages are
designed.  Users aren't repulsed by scrolling, but are less receptive to
pages that aren't designed effectively.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Christian Hagel-Sorensen]
I agree with you. I have yet to see/read research indicating that people
don't scroll. Of course people will be more tempted to scroll if they cn
clearly see that there is more content. But that  is a graphics design
question and should be quite easy to design to.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Rik Manhaeve]
I agree. Vertical scrolling does not seem to be a problem anymore. However
it
is crucial to have all very important information (important for the
visitor)
above the fold (using a 800x600 resolution with a maximized window).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
[BH Joyner]
Yeah I definitely agree with you. Like you said as long as the 
important content and main navigation are above the fold then I can't 
see any reason to try and cram the whole page in such a tiny space. 
There is nothing usable or attractive about a page where the text has 
to be so small to fit on it, and fights for space (and importance) with
tiny pictures and cramped interface.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Jared M. Spool]
We have data that says that users *do* scroll, quite happilly.  The
following article is from an old (3/20/98) UIEtips. (You can
subscribe to UIEtips at our web site at http://www.uie.com.)

Jared

----

Feature: For Whom The Page Scrolls

It's a widely held belief among the web developers we hang out
with that users hate scrolling.  We've consistently seen designers
struggling to keep as much of their design as possible "above the
fold."  However, our recent study findings say something different --
users will scroll and are more successful when they do.

Our tasks focused on information retrieval -- could the user find
specific information on the web site. Users participated in a
"scavenger hunt" where we asked them to locate the answers on specific
web sites to questions we created.

While observing the users attempting to locate this information, we
found that they were very willing to scroll through long pages.  And,
in analyzing the links that the users clicked on, we found some very
interesting facts:

> Fact #1: The lower the link on the page, the more likely it leads to
> success

We measured the depth of each link that the user chose.  We found that
it was not unusual for users to click on a link that is up to 20
inches into the page. (We measure page length in inches -- an average
800x600 Netscape browser window is about 4.5 inches.  So, 20 inches is
about four and a half screenfuls.)

We also found that, as users clicked lower on the page, they
substantially increased the likelihood that they would (eventually)
find the information.  It seems that users who click toward the bottom
of the page are pickier about what they finally click on. (If you are
going to choose one link out of four screen, wouldn't you want to
carefully consider which one?)

Now, this isn't to say that you should move *all* your links to the
3rd screen.  It turns out that there are other interesting attributes
about those links that are found deep in the page.

For example, links that deep are almost always text links.  And they
are almost always content links.  (A content link is a link that
points directly to content -- see "Category and Content Links" in the
2/19/98 UIEtips.)  Category links are almost always at the top of the
page.  (A category link is a link that points to other links.)

Also, links that are deep in the page tend to have more words (either
in the link themselves or in the associated text).

This suggests that creating long lists of content links is a
successful design approach.  Which brings us to our second fact:

> Fact #2: The more groups of content links, the more likely the users
> succeed

It was not unusual for these long pages to have their links grouped
into categories.  For example, the Edmund's home page
(http://www.edmunds.com) had groups for New Cars, New Trucks, Used
Vehicles, and Buyer Information.

When we counted the number of groups that appeared on pages users
visited during our testing, we found that users succeeded least when
there were only two groups, and they were most successful when four to
eight groups appeared on the page.

Grouping is a way for users to discriminate among bunches of links. It
also seemed that users used the links within the group to confirm they
were in the right place by seeing other links they recognized near by.
 If the grouping didn't make sense, users seemed to have more trouble.

However, we found that having more groups wasn't always the best
thing.  Six or more groups of category links did far worse than six or
more groups of content links.  Our recommendation to designers is that
if you are going to create groups, fill them with content links.

How many links should be in a group?  Well, we've found that groups
with up to 10 links show no negative effects.  (We didn't run into
enough groups with over 10 links to say one way or another.)

> To Scroll or not To Scroll

Scrolling isn't the issue we once thought it was.  Users will scroll
and it doesn't hurt their ability to find information -- in fact, it
often helps.  When building web pages that are intended to help people
find information, you don't need to worry about scrolling.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Scott Nelson]
I can't find any published research in my digital archives, so can only
rely on past experience. I believe Don Norman has commented on this in
some of his writings, and may be able to cite some research.

I spent some time in a single, small, nepotistic industry where I seemed
to continually rebuild my first project (it was viewed as the industry's
benchmark, in part because it was good but also because of the company's
reputation.) This afforded me numerous opportunities to evaluate different
home pages with the same goals but different executions.

Invariably, content that was visible on the home page without scrolling
was visited much more frequently. In some cases, we had home pages that
didn't scroll (the best option) but in other cases pressures required home
pages that scrolled, with content that was no more superfluous than the
rest of it.

So I don't think it's *necessary* to have all home page content fit on one
page, I would definitely operate under the assumption that the majority of
your users are not going to scroll. (Unless, of course, the majority of
your users are highly active computer and Internet users.)

My best advice on the topic of the 'home page having too many important
tasks' is to limit the tasks the home page has! I used to do this by
creating sub-homepages for important areas, and providing links to them
from the home page (as well as specific URLs for those that required
it...) There's a tendency to shove too much content onto home pages, and
this usually has the effect of confusing visitors before they've even done
anything on your site.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Ian Curson]
Jared Spool wrote:
>Scrolling isn't the issue we once thought it was.  Users will scroll
>and it doesn't hurt their ability to find information -- in fact, it
>often helps.  When building web pages that are intended to help people
>find information, you don't need to worry about scrolling.

Yes users will scroll, but not for the sake of it. I believe there's a
cost/benefit assessment going on at a fairly micro-level. People tend to do
the easiest thing they feel will yield the results they want. Users follow
the "scent of information" (to use terminology from more of UIE's great
work), but I believe they balance this with the effort/time they think it
will take.

Scrolling down the page takes a relatively small amount of time and effort
compared to following a link, which makes it a more likely route if all
things are equal, but if a link above the fold has an overwhelmingly strong
scent compared to that given off by the "below the fold" information, then
they tend to follow that link and ignore the rest of the page.

In user testing, I've noticed that users tend not to scroll down on
cluttered home pages with a lot of disparate information panels (not ones we
design, I hasten to add!), although they are willing to scroll down on more
coherent and logically laid out pages. For pages that users describe as
"cluttered" or "disorganised", they also report that they didn't know what
to expect further down the page and "couldn't be bothered" to scroll.
Instead, they simply wanted to escape the current page to one that was
hopefully more coherent. It seems that pages that do not communicate
strongly what they are about do not promote scrolling (instead they seem to
promote fleeing!)

The lesson from all of this is that the page above the fold must communicate
the page's purpose, and so communicate what the user can expect to find
lower down - providing the right "scent" to explore in that direction. It is
not enough to just bung a load of information on a page and expect the user
to scroll down to find some unrelated information further down.

I have no hard data or theoretical foundation for the micro-cost/benefit
idea, though I do have a lot of user testing experience and anecdotally it
seems to hold water. Is there any research out there that supports or
counters this?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Devika Ganapathy]
Although no rule says that home pages should not scroll, there are some
things to consider.
The fact that the discussion is about the homepage and not an inside page,
brings up a whole load of issues.

1) The home page should contain only the most important information.
Everything need not (and should not) be said upfront.
Too many click choices upfront confuses the user and increases task time.
A restriction on page scrolling would therefore serve as a reality check and
help keep home page content focused.

However, page scroll is not an absolute usability no no which has to be
achieved at any cost.
Like Francois mentions, a no scroll homepage would not make sense on a
necessarily info heavy site; or elimination of  necessary items on the page
just to make it scroll free.

2)When a web page is loading, the material 'above the fold' will be the
first thing the user sees.
This is what influences his first impressions about the site. Especially
when the user is not looking for something in particular, it's unlikely the
he will bother to scroll if what he sees upfront doesn't capture his
attention in the first place.

3) Often page scroll is the result of unnecessary or large graphic content
or bad usage of page real estate.
If vertical page scrolling is one of the factors kept in mind, more care
will be taken on design and placement of page content.

To summarize, scroll or no scroll is very context specific. It is a factor
that has to be kept in mind while designing a page so that unnecessary
scrolling is prevented.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Baron Lane]
I believe your correct in your reasoning Franšois
and this is more a matter if the client wanting what
they want. Period.

This is usually caused by one of Peirce's methods
of fixed beliefs, "the method of tenacity", by which
a person clings stubbornly to a claim because it
it seems obvious or makes "common sense" to them. Your
client might have read an article on usability, had a
conversation...whatever. They are steadfast in their
belief that no part of their home page should be scrolled.

If you've used all of your provided recommendations
and examples while discussing this with your client
and they are not willing to budge (even though they
are paying you for an expert opinion) then you might
consider just doing what they say and detailing your
preferences in documentation and giving the client
specifically what they are asking for. Get it
all in writing. This way your no longer wasting your
time with a battle that can't be won (cleanly anyway)
and your covered your butt.

When the site goes live make sure your client is
exposed to the responses from users and when it comes
time to update the site you'll probably have more
leverage. Hopefully by then the client will be more
open to scrolling and might think it was their idea.
Whatever...the site will improve and you are still in
good graces with the client.

The customer may always be right but they can
gently be shown that there's room for improvement
with time and more information.

Man I should be a politician.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Louise Penberthy]
> We have data that says that users *do* scroll, quite happilly.  The
> following article is from an old (3/20/98) UIEtips. [...]
>
> Our tasks focused on information retrieval -- could the user find
> specific information on the web site. Users participated in a
> "scavenger hunt" where we asked them to locate the answers on specific
> web sites to questions we created.

After reading this article over, I think your results follow from your task.
You asked subjects to find specific information *on a particular site.*
That gives them a reason to continue that users of a Web site would not
have.  Users looking for a particular piece of information -- does this site
sell PDAs, for instance -- are not necessarily motivated to find that piece
of information *on that particular site.*  They are probably motivated to
find it *somewhere.*  If they don't readily find it on the site they're on,
they may go elsewhere.

> > Fact #1: The lower the link on the page, the more likely it leads to
> > success
>
> [...]
>
> [...] links that deep are almost always text links.  And they
> are almost always content links.  (A content link is a link that
> points directly to content -- see "Category and Content Links" in the
> 2/19/98 UIEtips.)  Category links are almost always at the top of the
> page.  (A category link is a link that points to other links.)
>
> Also, links that are deep in the page tend to have more words (either
> in the link themselves or in the associated text).

There appears to be a confound in your study here.  The depth of the link on
the page and the length and type of the link are two independent attributes
of links.  In order to really conclude that link depth correlates with
success *and also* that link length and type correlate with success, you'd
have to manipulate them independently.

For instance, you could take exactly the same link (in length and type) and
manipulate its depth across subjects.  If you find that success is
negatively correlated with depth (that is, the higher the link on the page,
the greater likelihood of success), then your "Fact #1" will be
contradicted.  I predict that that is what you would find.

You could also study link length in at a fixed depth.  Take one link and
create variations on it of, say, three, five, seven, and nine words.  Then
vary the version of the link across subjects.  You'd have to do this for
many links, and be very careful about wording, otherwise you'd get confounds
from individual words.  I predict that you'd find an optimum length of link,
though I also predict it would depend heavily on good word choices.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Mark Kawano]
certain users know how to scroll and like to and certain users don't.
my only recommendation is to know the user your designing for and if
possible, try to do your own study.  that is usually the most convincing
argument.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Matt Prather]
I'm rather surprised that no one seems to have mentioned the **nature of the
online material** as an important factor in the users' willingness to
scroll. (I'm particularly surprised that Jared didn't bring this up, since
UIE has long offered a targeted course called "Usability for Documentation
Professionals" --- Jared, are you listening? :-} )

Anyway, it does seem to me to be an extremely important factor. If I'm
putting together an online Help system --- for CD, kiosk, Web delivery,
whatever --- I do try to take the Thou Shalt Not Require Scrolling
commandment pretty seriously. Why? Because I know that my readers are
looking for concise solutions to problems they're facing RIGHT NOW (that's
usually about the only reason they'll ever go to Help in the first place),
and they are not going to either "hunt" for it or scroll for it. My own
anecdotal evidence suggests that, in this milieu, users will more readily
follow the scent of information through multiple short-but-relevant topics
than they will scroll through fewer-but-longer topics. This is especially
true if the online information system is well indexed and features "Related
Topics" links: users seems to be happier quickly scanning a short topic and
equally quickly deciding "Yep, that takes care of it!" or, "Nope, that
doesn't answer my question; what else have you got?!"

In contrast, when I have put together full online documentation sets, online
training/education coursework, or "e-white papers," I've assumed that the
audience is going to be doing much more in-depth reading, and that they're
more willing to scroll through longer documents. Naturally, I also try to
provide as many affordances to indicate the need (and ability) scroll as
possible, but users don't seem to be stumped or annoyed by the need to
scroll in this situation --- provided, as always, that it's limited to
VERTICAL scrolling and not HORIZONTAL scrolling.

The whole discussion originally centered around home page design, so perhaps
these observations aren't as pithy and germane as I'd hope (is that
possible? Nah....), but I'd still maintain the high importance of the kind
of material as a partial determinant in whether scrolling is acceptable.
Unfortunately, I have very limited research data on this facet, aside from
the years of anecdotal evidence cited above. Does anyone else have some good
quantifiable data on this? If so, I'd appreciate your passing it on to me.
Thanks!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Joe Sokohl]
in a current (and on-going) usability test, out of 11 people who have tested
our prototype (whose home page has approximately 1 1/3 pages of info on the
home page), every one of them either commented that scrolling irritated
them...or they were confused and didn't understand the scrolling at
all....no strong analysis yet (still testing four more people on Monday),
yet based on the observation so far, I would advise our designers to ensure
the home page does NOT scroll.

Just my observations of real people....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[Erik Ojakaar]
I would be cautious about jumping to this conclusion.  If users were
"confused"  and didn't understand that they could scroll, it may have more
to do with the information design of the page and less to do with the fact
that the page is designed to be *scrollable*.  At User Interface
Engineering, we frequently observe what we call "the iceberg syndrome". This
is where users don't find useful information above the scroll so assume that
information below the scroll is more of the same.

As far as user's comments about being "irritated" about scrolling, I would
be cautious assuming too much here too.  In our usability study on
e-commerce sites, we found little correlation between user's negative
comments about the homepage design and how they rated the site after
accomplishing their task.

In our studies, we have observed that most users scroll - and do so
willingly unless they are unable to comprehend how the information is
designed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[adam]
> or they were confused and didn't understand the scrolling at
> all

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean they didn't understand
how scrolling works? (If so, how do you differentiate between usability
issues with a home page and those with basic use of the computer.)

A few more details of who you were testing and for what purpose would help a
lot.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

[George Olsen]
>in a current (and on-going) usability test, out of 11 people who have
tested
>our prototype (whose home page has approximately 1 1/3 pages of info on the
>home page), every one of them either commented that scrolling irritated
>them...or they were confused and didn't understand the scrolling at
>all....no strong analysis yet (still testing four more people on Monday),
>yet based on the observation so far, I would advise our designers to ensure
>the home page does NOT scroll.

I'd suggest part of that is because your pages are *1-1/3* long,
which would be more irritating than something longer (i.e. 2-3
screens) and clearly requires scrolling. 1-1/3 requires effort
(scrolling) for not a lot of return.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

Francois Jordaan
Wheel
85 Clerkenwell Road, London EC1R 5AR
T +44 (0)20 7071 8000   F +44 (0)20 7831 0181
Direct +44 (0)20 7071 8459
[log in to unmask]   www.wheel.co.uk 

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
http://www.uk.uu.net/products/security/virus/

    --------------------------------------------------------------
        Tip of the Day: Email mailto:[log in to unmask]
               with any comments, questions or problems
               About CHI-WEB: http://www.sigchi.org/web/
         Vacations, holidays and other subscription changes:
             http://www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html#vacations
    --------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 4
November 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
September 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
December 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 2
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007, Week 3
December 2007, Week 2
December 2007, Week 1
November 2007, Week 5
November 2007, Week 4
November 2007, Week 3
November 2007, Week 2
November 2007, Week 1
October 2007, Week 5
October 2007, Week 4
October 2007, Week 3
October 2007, Week 1
September 2007, Week 5
September 2007, Week 4
September 2007, Week 2
September 2007, Week 1
August 2007, Week 3
August 2007, Week 2
August 2007, Week 1
July 2007, Week 4
July 2007, Week 3
July 2007, Week 2
July 2007, Week 1
June 2007, Week 4
June 2007, Week 3
June 2007, Week 2
June 2007, Week 1
May 2007, Week 5
May 2007, Week 4
May 2007, Week 3
April 2007, Week 4
April 2007, Week 3
April 2007, Week 2
March 2007, Week 3
March 2007, Week 2
March 2007, Week 1
February 2007, Week 4
February 2007, Week 3
February 2007, Week 2
February 2007, Week 1
January 2007, Week 5
January 2007, Week 4
January 2007, Week 3
December 2006, Week 4
December 2006, Week 3
December 2006, Week 2
December 2006, Week 1
November 2006, Week 5
November 2006, Week 4
November 2006, Week 3
November 2006, Week 2
November 2006, Week 1
October 2006, Week 5
October 2006, Week 4
October 2006, Week 3
October 2006, Week 2
October 2006, Week 1
September 2006, Week 5
September 2006, Week 4
September 2006, Week 3
September 2006, Week 2
September 2006, Week 1
August 2006, Week 5
August 2006, Week 4
August 2006, Week 3
August 2006, Week 2
August 2006, Week 1
July 2006, Week 4
July 2006, Week 3
July 2006, Week 2
July 2006, Week 1
June 2006, Week 5
June 2006, Week 4
June 2006, Week 3
June 2006, Week 2
June 2006, Week 1
May 2006, Week 5
May 2006, Week 4
May 2006, Week 3
May 2006, Week 2
May 2006, Week 1
April 2006, Week 5
April 2006, Week 4
April 2006, Week 3
April 2006, Week 2
April 2006, Week 1
March 2006, Week 4
March 2006, Week 3
March 2006, Week 2
March 2006, Week 1
February 2006, Week 4
February 2006, Week 3
February 2006, Week 2
February 2006, Week 1
January 2006, Week 5
January 2006, Week 4
January 2006, Week 3
January 2006, Week 2
January 2006, Week 1
December 2005, Week 4
December 2005, Week 3
December 2005, Week 2
December 2005, Week 1
November 2005, Week 5
November 2005, Week 4
November 2005, Week 3
November 2005, Week 2
November 2005, Week 1
October 2005, Week 5
October 2005, Week 4
October 2005, Week 3
October 2005, Week 2
October 2005, Week 1
September 2005, Week 5
September 2005, Week 4
September 2005, Week 3
September 2005, Week 2
September 2005, Week 1
August 2005, Week 5
August 2005, Week 4
August 2005, Week 3
August 2005, Week 2
August 2005, Week 1
July 2005, Week 5
July 2005, Week 4
July 2005, Week 3
July 2005, Week 2
July 2005, Week 1
June 2005, Week 4
June 2005, Week 3
June 2005, Week 2
June 2005, Week 1
May 2005, Week 5
May 2005, Week 4
May 2005, Week 3
May 2005, Week 2
May 2005, Week 1
April 2005, Week 5
April 2005, Week 4
April 2005, Week 3
April 2005, Week 2
April 2005, Week 1
March 2005, Week 5
March 2005, Week 4
March 2005, Week 3
March 2005, Week 2
March 2005, Week 1
February 2005, Week 4
February 2005, Week 3
February 2005, Week 2
February 2005, Week 1
January 2005, Week 5
January 2005, Week 4
January 2005, Week 3
January 2005, Week 2
January 2005, Week 1
December 2004, Week 5
December 2004, Week 4
December 2004, Week 3
December 2004, Week 2
December 2004, Week 1
November 2004, Week 5
November 2004, Week 4
November 2004, Week 3
November 2004, Week 2
November 2004, Week 1
October 2004, Week 5
October 2004, Week 4
October 2004, Week 3
October 2004, Week 2
October 2004, Week 1
September 2004, Week 5
September 2004, Week 4
September 2004, Week 3
September 2004, Week 2
September 2004, Week 1
August 2004, Week 5
August 2004, Week 4
August 2004, Week 3
August 2004, Week 2
August 2004, Week 1
July 2004, Week 5
July 2004, Week 4
July 2004, Week 3
July 2004, Week 2
July 2004, Week 1
June 2004, Week 5
June 2004, Week 4
June 2004, Week 3
June 2004, Week 2
June 2004, Week 1
May 2004, Week 5
May 2004, Week 4
May 2004, Week 3
May 2004, Week 2
May 2004, Week 1
April 2004, Week 5
April 2004, Week 4
April 2004, Week 3
April 2004, Week 2
April 2004, Week 1
March 2004, Week 1
February 2004, Week 4
February 2004, Week 2
February 2004, Week 1
January 2004, Week 4
January 2004, Week 3
January 2004, Week 2
January 2004, Week 1
December 2003, Week 4
December 2003, Week 3
December 2003, Week 2
December 2003, Week 1
November 2003, Week 5
November 2003, Week 4
November 2003, Week 3
November 2003, Week 2
November 2003, Week 1
October 2003, Week 5
October 2003, Week 4
October 2003, Week 3
October 2003, Week 2
October 2003, Week 1
September 2003, Week 5
September 2003, Week 4
September 2003, Week 3
September 2003, Week 2
September 2003, Week 1
August 2003, Week 5
August 2003, Week 4
August 2003, Week 3
August 2003, Week 2
August 2003, Week 1
July 2003, Week 5
July 2003, Week 4
July 2003, Week 3
July 2003, Week 2
July 2003, Week 1
June 2003, Week 5
June 2003, Week 4
June 2003, Week 3
June 2003, Week 2
June 2003, Week 1
May 2003, Week 5
May 2003, Week 4
May 2003, Week 3
May 2003, Week 2
May 2003, Week 1
April 2003, Week 5
April 2003, Week 4
April 2003, Week 3
April 2003, Week 2
April 2003, Week 1
March 2003, Week 5
March 2003, Week 4
March 2003, Week 3
March 2003, Week 2
March 2003, Week 1
February 2003, Week 4
February 2003, Week 3
February 2003, Week 2
February 2003, Week 1
January 2003, Week 5
January 2003, Week 4
January 2003, Week 3
January 2003, Week 2
January 2003, Week 1
December 2002, Week 5
December 2002, Week 4
December 2002, Week 3
December 2002, Week 2
December 2002, Week 1
November 2002, Week 5
November 2002, Week 4
November 2002, Week 3
November 2002, Week 2
November 2002, Week 1
October 2002, Week 5
October 2002, Week 4
October 2002, Week 3
October 2002, Week 2
October 2002, Week 1
September 2002, Week 5
September 2002, Week 4
September 2002, Week 3
September 2002, Week 2
September 2002, Week 1
August 2002, Week 4
August 2002, Week 3
August 2002, Week 2
August 2002, Week 1
July 2002, Week 5
July 2002, Week 4
July 2002, Week 3
July 2002, Week 2
July 2002, Week 1
June 2002, Week 5
June 2002, Week 4
June 2002, Week 3
June 2002, Week 2
June 2002, Week 1
May 2002, Week 5
May 2002, Week 4
May 2002, Week 3
May 2002, Week 2
May 2002, Week 1
April 2002, Week 5
April 2002, Week 4
April 2002, Week 3
April 2002, Week 2
April 2002, Week 1
March 2002, Week 5
March 2002, Week 4
March 2002, Week 3
March 2002, Week 2
March 2002, Week 1
February 2002, Week 4
February 2002, Week 3
February 2002, Week 2
February 2002, Week 1
January 2002, Week 5
January 2002, Week 4
January 2002, Week 3
January 2002, Week 2
January 2002, Week 1
December 2001, Week 5
December 2001, Week 4
December 2001, Week 3
December 2001, Week 2
December 2001, Week 1
November 2001, Week 5
November 2001, Week 3
November 2001, Week 1
October 2001, Week 5
October 2001, Week 4
October 2001, Week 3
October 2001, Week 2
October 2001, Week 1
September 2001, Week 5
September 2001, Week 4
September 2001, Week 3
September 2001, Week 2
September 2001, Week 1
August 2001, Week 5
August 2001, Week 4
August 2001, Week 3
August 2001, Week 2
August 2001, Week 1
July 2001, Week 5
July 2001, Week 4
July 2001, Week 3
July 2001, Week 2
July 2001, Week 1
June 2001, Week 5
June 2001, Week 4
June 2001, Week 3
June 2001, Week 2
June 2001, Week 1
May 2001, Week 5
May 2001, Week 4
May 2001, Week 3
May 2001, Week 2
May 2001, Week 1
April 2001, Week 5
April 2001, Week 4
April 2001, Week 3
April 2001, Week 2
April 2001, Week 1
March 2001, Week 5
March 2001, Week 4
March 2001, Week 3
March 2001, Week 2
March 2001, Week 1
February 2001, Week 4
February 2001, Week 3
February 2001, Week 2
February 2001, Week 1
January 2001, Week 5
January 2001, Week 4
January 2001, Week 3
January 2001, Week 2
January 2001, Week 1
December 2000, Week 5
December 2000, Week 4
December 2000, Week 3
December 2000, Week 2
December 2000, Week 1
November 2000, Week 5
November 2000, Week 4
November 2000, Week 3
November 2000, Week 2
November 2000, Week 1
October 2000, Week 5
October 2000, Week 4
October 2000, Week 3
October 2000, Week 2
October 2000, Week 1
September 2000, Week 5
September 2000, Week 4
September 2000, Week 3
September 2000, Week 2
September 2000, Week 1
August 2000, Week 5
August 2000, Week 4
August 2000, Week 3
August 2000, Week 2
August 2000, Week 1
July 2000, Week 5
July 2000, Week 4
July 2000, Week 3
July 2000, Week 2
July 2000, Week 1
June 2000, Week 5
June 2000, Week 4
June 2000, Week 3
June 2000, Week 2
June 2000, Week 1
May 2000, Week 5
May 2000, Week 4
May 2000, Week 3
May 2000, Week 2
May 2000, Week 1
April 2000, Week 5
April 2000, Week 4
April 2000, Week 3
April 2000, Week 2
April 2000, Week 1
March 2000, Week 5
March 2000, Week 4
March 2000, Week 3
March 2000, Week 2
March 2000, Week 1
February 2000, Week 5
February 2000, Week 4
February 2000, Week 3
February 2000, Week 2
February 2000, Week 1
January 2000, Week 5
January 2000, Week 4
January 2000, Week 3
January 2000, Week 2
January 2000, Week 1
December 1999, Week 5
December 1999, Week 4
December 1999, Week 3
December 1999, Week 2
December 1999, Week 1
November 1999, Week 5
November 1999, Week 4
November 1999, Week 3
November 1999, Week 2
November 1999, Week 1
October 1999, Week 5
October 1999, Week 4
October 1999, Week 3
October 1999, Week 2
October 1999, Week 1
September 1999, Week 5
September 1999, Week 4
September 1999, Week 3
September 1999, Week 2
September 1999, Week 1
August 1999, Week 5
August 1999, Week 4
August 1999, Week 3
August 1999, Week 2
August 1999, Week 1
July 1999, Week 5
July 1999, Week 4
July 1999, Week 3
July 1999, Week 2
July 1999, Week 1
June 1999, Week 5
June 1999, Week 4
June 1999, Week 3
June 1999, Week 2
June 1999, Week 1
May 1999, Week 4
May 1999, Week 3
May 1999, Week 2
May 1999, Week 1
April 1999, Week 5
April 1999, Week 4
April 1999, Week 3
April 1999, Week 2
April 1999, Week 1
March 1999, Week 5
March 1999, Week 4
March 1999, Week 3
March 1999, Week 2
March 1999, Week 1
February 1999, Week 4
February 1999, Week 3
February 1999, Week 2
February 1999, Week 1
January 1999, Week 5
January 1999, Week 4
January 1999, Week 3
January 1999, Week 2
January 1999, Week 1
December 1998, Week 5
December 1998, Week 3
December 1998, Week 2
December 1998, Week 1
November 1998, Week 5
November 1998, Week 4
November 1998, Week 3
November 1998, Week 2
November 1998, Week 1
October 1998, Week 5
October 1998, Week 4
October 1998, Week 3
October 1998, Week 2
October 1998, Week 1
September 1998, Week 4
September 1998, Week 3
September 1998, Week 2
September 1998, Week 1
August 1998, Week 5
August 1998, Week 4
August 1998, Week 3
August 1998, Week 2
August 1998, Week 1
July 1998, Week 5
July 1998, Week 4
July 1998, Week 3
July 1998, Week 2
July 1998, Week 1
June 1998, Week 4
June 1998, Week 3
June 1998, Week 2
June 1998, Week 1
May 1998, Week 4
May 1998, Week 3
May 1998, Week 2
May 1998, Week 1
April 1998, Week 5
April 1998, Week 4
April 1998, Week 3
April 1998, Week 2
April 1998, Week 1
March 1998, Week 5
March 1998, Week 4
March 1998, Week 3
March 1998, Week 2
March 1998, Week 1
February 1998, Week 2
February 1998, Week 1
January 1998, Week 4
January 1998, Week 3
January 1998, Week 2
January 1998, Week 1
December 1997, Week 4
December 1997, Week 3
December 1997, Week 2
December 1997, Week 1
November 1997, Week 4
November 1997, Week 2
October 1997, Week 3
September 1997, Week 5
September 1997, Week 4
September 1997, Week 3
September 1997, Week 1
August 1997, Week 4
August 1997, Week 2
August 1997, Week 1
July 1997, Week 4
July 1997, Week 3
July 1997, Week 2
June 1997, Week 5
June 1997, Week 4
June 1997, Week 2
June 1997, Week 1
May 1997, Week 5
May 1997, Week 4
May 1997, Week 3
April 1997, Week 5
April 1997, Week 4
April 1997, Week 3
April 1997, Week 2
April 1997, Week 1
March 1997, Week 4
March 1997, Week 3
March 1997, Week 2
March 1997, Week 1
February 1997, Week 4
February 1997, Week 3
February 1997, Week 2
February 1997, Week 1
January 1997, Week 5

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager