You are currently browsing the matt klawitter internet marketing archives for March, 2008.
There is No Fold on the Web
March 14th, 2008
Sorry, but you might actually have to scroll to read this article. Scrolling has been part of the graphic web since it’s earliest days. But, if you say the word “scroll” to a professional web designer, you will likely see that person cringe. Why? The answer is the mythical concept of the fold.
A common misconception about content on a website is that there is a fold — a term originating from newspaper layouts where a physical fold in the paper separated content from the top and bottom. Space “above the fold” on a newspaper is considered more valuable because it is arguably the first information a reader will view. After all, in order to see content below the fold on a newspaper you have to touch it, turn it over, or open it. It requires interaction.
This concept (the fold) has unfortunately been carried over to web browsers. It is the belief that the bottom of the browser (or viewport) is the fold — the point where content that requires scrolling to view is not visible. As a result, designers have been forced over the years to cram as much information, graphics, and content “above the fold.” The result is tight, tense layouts that frustrate the eye and cause a type of stress that users cannot identify but they feel.
The fold myth encourages bad design. It is a direct violation of proven usability concepts that illustrate the need to have obvious navigation, large interactive image links, text that can be scanned easily, and open spaces between areas of content that reduces tension on the eye. These actions allow users to quickly scan the page and decide in which area to interact (or click).
But, what about browser statistics?
Here’s where the counterargument (or the pro-folders) bring up viewport stats. That is, the numbers of people who still have 800×600, 1024×768, and so on. The thought is you use the common browser sizes, subtract some pixels to account for tool bars and such, then you have the fold location. There are even websites and companies that will do viewport tracking to provide these numbers. Advertisers pay more to be above the fold. Executives and clients demand little scrolling, and common sense goes out the window.
There is a valid reason to use browser statistics to aid design, but it is not to empower the fold. This data should influence designers in only one way – the point of viewport transition. The mythical fold is not an end; it is a point of transition. Designers need this information to ensure the page encourages instinctive exploration beyond this point. A cut-off layout where images and graphics have an obvious continuation, yet are not entirely visible, encourages inherent scrolling behavior. Straight lines of content near the viewport transition will mistakenly create the illusion of a cut-off point, so some users may not go past this point even if the scrollbar is not in it’s bottom-most state. Avoid this mistake by “breaking the line” near the viewport transition. Give the user’s wandering eye something to subconsciously remind them there is more to explore. Images that are cut-off just beg for scrolling. Gradients and vertical lines also are options.
Regardless of how you address the issue of the viewport transition point, do not mistakenly define it as the fold. Let that term remain with the newspaper industry where it actually exists. Studies by companies like Intel, AOL, and others have proven that users will scroll to get content if it exists. Content above the viewport transition point is more valuable because it usually consists of banners, logos, navigation, and other defining characteristics, but that does not mean you should be limited to or misguided by the mythical fold. You will end up with short pages with crammed information, or users frustrated by unnecessary page separations that result in more clicking.
Finally, with the abundance of new viewports from iPhones, tablets, gaming systems, and other browsers, there is no perfect or reasonable way to justify any irrational reduction of content on a page. You will end up wasting time avoiding scrolling, when you should actually encourage it.
