
The myth of the page fold: evidence from user testing - jmorin007
http://www.cxpartners.co.uk/thoughts/the_myth_of_the_page_fold_evidence_from_user_testing.htm
======
elblanco
The heat maps of eye movement were fascinating...I noticed the almost complete
lack of activity on the advertisements immediately. Users appear to do what I
do, just simply ignore them or try and filter them out.

~~~
ams6110
What I noticed was that most of the attention was between the left side and
center of the page. The only attention point on the right side was the scroll
bar. Made me think of the NEXTSTEP window manager where the scroll bars were
on the left. The explanation at the time for this apparent deviation from the
"standard" was that it kept the scroll bar closer to the user's primary
attention areas on the page.

In Mac OS X i guess Apple caved to popular convention and moved the scroll
bars to the right.

~~~
elblanco
I wonder why only a particular part of the scroll bar appears to have
attracted long gaze patterns? In my own case, I'm typically looking at the
slider as a metric of page length, not a particular spot on the bar itself.

~~~
gambling8nt
I noticed that as well; I assume people basically all tended to check page
length at the same point through the page--presumably at some boundary between
content sections.

------
btn
The lack of detail in what their users were actually doing on the sites they
tested makes it hard to tell what they're trying to dispel.

If you're giving users a specific task to perform on a specific website in a
controlled environment, then _of course_ scrolling isn't going to deter them.
The argument against scrolling is that if you're trying to _attract_ users to
your site---to pick your site over other potential sites---then scrolling will
be a factor when people want to make a quick decision if your site is useful
or not.

~~~
ubernostrum
Well, this is really the problem. The fold really only becomes a huge factor
when you're trying to win someone's attention in that snap "does this site
have what I need" judgment; once the user's mind is made up that, yes, this is
the right place, it becomes largely irrelevant.

But somewhere along the line, a useful guideline for getting people to stick
around and explore a page or a site morphed into a hard rule of "never have
anything at all below the fold, ever". Which is frankly stupid.

------
JDigital
Jakob Nielsen helped to popularize the myth that web users don't scroll down.
It led to an era of website design that crammed as much onto one page, leading
to busy, crowded homepages. It wasn't until later that early adopters of CSS
made websites simple again, in part to avoid compatibility issues with
Internet Explorer.

~~~
alabut
I'd rather blame people that took his advice to extremes and tried to shove
_everything_ above the fold, which isn't what he advocated, just to add the
most important stuff up top:

 _"Is all key information visible above the fold so users can see it without
scrolling?"_

<http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen_resolution.html>

~~~
ahoyhere
Of course you can blame the patient, so to speak, because they took the
doctor's advice to the extreme. Except that everything Nielsen writes/promotes
is couched in such a way that it looks black & white, and so naturally people
take it to extremes. Because he encouraged them to, in the way that he
presents his information.

Consider the surrounding circumstances to the "pure" information he posts:

1\. He says it is SCIENCE!

2\. He does not allow for differing levels of user engagement. (If you're
interested, you will not behave the same way as somebody who has no interest.)

3\. He does not reveal the type of user / type of content being tested. (Are
they bored to tears? Is it well-written, captivating content? Is it something
relevant to their life?) Would this be hard? Yes. But you _cannot_ evaluate
the "facts" without it!

4\. He may waffle a little now and again, and say something that's not
entirely "my way or the highway" strident -- e.g. "Is all key information
visible above the fold?" -- but...

5\. He NEVER lists proven counter-examples.

Examples for #5: many "sales letters" of products on the internet (esp. info
products) rely on heavily engaging the user's interest FIRST, and then
following a build-up-let-down pattern of excitement. Often their critical info
-- price, call to action buttons -- are well below "the fold." Waay, way down
there... they only reveal it to people who are biting the hook.

And this works. Really, really well. It works because it engages the visitor,
and builds suspense, rather than just laying it all in front of them.

But has Nielsen ever addressed this?

Ha!

He uses the attachment that people have to "science," "statistics," and
"facts," and exploits it to provide certainty in an an uncertain world.

Too bad it's false certainty.

~~~
dcminter
"But has Nielsen ever addressed this?"

Since the point of a substantial number of his articles is that quick and
dirty usability testing is the only reliable way to make usability decisions I
don't think you can reasonably fault him here.

I don't think your account correctly characterizes his approach to usability.
I think it correctly characterizes the _perception_ of his approach to
usability in many who dismiss him.

~~~
ahoyhere
He has written a few pieces about doing your own low-budget user testing, yes,
but he doesn't encourage it after making his claims about specific things you
should or shouldn't do.

That is, he doesn't say "These results are for our site, you should test it
yourself for yours. Our findings may not be relevant for your situation."
after he's talked about findings or made recommendations.

And he doesn't address situations that are directly in opposition of the
findings he does report -- e.g., he has _never_ covered sales letters as I
described.

When he does write about "do it yourself" user testing, he does it in separate
articles that are only about that topic. They are not situated in the broader
context.

He is obviously a very smart person so I don't think that this is accidental.

And he only writes those DIY pieces once or twice a year. Generally speaking
his company sells 3-day usability testing workshops for $23,000.

So, let's be realistic here.

Here's an example of one of the rare times when he discloses the actual test
data: <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html>

Usually when he makes claims about, say, readability, no examples are offered.
I was shocked to find this one.

You'll notice that nowhere in his explanation of the findings does he
conjecture that maybe reading comprehension is low because it's bloody boring
AND poorly written, and nobody gives two shits about Nebraska's dubious
tourist attractions.

He says maybe it's because the language is "promotional." But, again, deathly
boring and irrelevance to user's lives doesn't come into his analysis picture
at all.

And he doesn't tell you to test your own content, either.

I have all his books and I've read the vast majority of his articles, too. You
can dismiss me as somebody who merely has a "perception" problem, but that
doesn't change the effort I've put into it.

PS - He reviewed a book on manipulating customers, through fiddling with
neuroscientific knobs, thusly:

\---

I highly recommend that you read this [book] for two reasons:

* The book's indispensable design advice will grow your business.

* You must teach your children to recognize this new class of manipulation.

\---

So, it's cool when you're only manipulating OTHER people's kids.

I don't know why people think of him as if he's some kind of folk hero.

~~~
dcminter
"Generally speaking his company sells 3-day usability testing workshops for
$23,000."

Don't you think that the selling of $23,000 usability testing workshops might
constitute an incentive for him to _push_ for more hands on usability testing
rather than the blind acceptance of his findings?

~~~
ahoyhere
Yes, if you hire him.

But you said that he is a powerful proponent for low-cost, self-run tests...
and he's not, really, as I pointed out. Lukewarm at best, perhaps.

Meanwhile, why do you think he doesn't recommend testing for differences when
he makes his announcements regarding findings? Or even mention that they vary?

This is just pure speculation, but it seems as if he's more concerned with
sounding authoritative -- so people hire him -- than pointing out the
ambiguities in statistical usability research.

------
req2
I'm curious as to what their test protocol is that it has dispelled every
other posting on this topic. A person told to buy shoes at Amazon.com isn't
going to be stifled by a scrollbar, but someone who isn't being directly told
to interact with the website in a given manner doesn't seem as likely to
scroll down looking for content that isn't found on a sparsely populated top
page.

(Related: <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/word-matching.html>)

------
patio11
Somebody forgot to send my users the memo, apparently.

~~~
req2
I'm sad to see that no one else has upvoted you; you seem to be the only one
here that has had the experience to weigh in on the issue.

------
KarlGilis
Whether users want to scroll or not, depends from situation to situation.
Visitors will not always scroll. So it's not just a myth.

It depends on the type of page and the type of website.

A nice article illustrating when users want to scroll (and when not) can be
found at <http://webusability-blog.com/page-fold-fact-or-fiction/>. It also
gives some good examples of good use of the area above the page fold.

------
maudineormsby
Worth noting that while you can have content below the fold and signal to
users to find it, that's not true with branding and identity features - those
should be prominent and above the fold.

Further, as a commenter on the article pointed out, there's benefit in
identifying your audience. Someone on NYT is obviously willing to scroll. Can
the same really be said of someone shopping for a luxury car and looking to be
wowed?

------
hussong
Looks like the 'Holy Scrollers' have won, while the 'Sharks' (everything in
one bite) are left to chew on their hypercard metaphor.

------
lurkinggrue
Yeah, what about the scroll-wheel? I hardly ever touch the scroll bars
anymore.

