

Google Tests an Interface Optimized for Infinite Scrolling - Garbage
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2011/07/google-tests-interface-optimized-for.html

======
nodata
I hate infinite scrolling. With pagination at least you get a feeling of
having completed something, of having got somewhere. With infinite scrolling
you are stuck, scrolling forever.

The nice thing about Google Images infinite scrolling is that they combine it
with pagination.

~~~
miloco
I think the title is misleading. If I'm not mistaken it's not actual infinite
scrolling, the only change is the search bar and search tools remain in a
fixed position. It's a nice change.

~~~
addandsubtract
>The new interface seems to set the stage for a fluid design that removes
pagination and replaces it with infinite scrolling.

The key phrase in the article is "setting the stage". Google hasn't switched
to infinite scroll yet, but with a fixed header it seems most likely for them
to do so soon.

------
acqq
"The navigation bar, the search box and the search options sidebar have a
fixed position"

I see this as "the revenge of designers" -- having anything permanently taking
up the vertical space was pushed from "designers" for years and it always
reduced usability for me. I'd prefer to see the results, not immense fixed
space that doesn't contain anything. The picture is telling -- the permanent
menu bar and the huge empty space around the search box and logo.

~~~
p9idf
I despise frames. And let's call these fixed elements what they really are:
frames. In addition to reducing the usable screen area (which is awful on my
netbook's 1024x600 screen)[1], frames also break the page metaphor. Part of
what makes the web easy to use is that interacting with each website works
more or less the same. That is to say, the scrolling behaviour of web pages
mimics a real-life piece of paper. If the entire website no longer scrolls as
one uniform page, when visiting a new site, the scrolling behaviour is
unpredictable with each site doing something different. My terminology is
clumsy, but perhaps it is clear enough to understand what I mean.

[1] <http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/1748/screenwaste.png>

~~~
Pewpewarrows
Would you design for the 90% or the 10%? While it sucks that your experience
is diminished on a netbook with a small browser viewport (which can be helped
if you were to switch to Chrome instead of Firefox), this is only a problem
for a very small percentage of the user-base with tiny screens. The rest get a
very pleasant and improved site experience.

Does it suck for those in the ever-decreasing minority? Yep. Is it worth it?
Absolutely.

~~~
jamesgeck0
> this is only a problem for a very small percentage of the user-base with
> tiny screens

No, it's not. <http://browsersize.googlelabs.com/>

------
mojuba
Please, please, never use recursive examples. They are confusing, distracting,
make any presentation look poor, plus they show the author's lack of
imagination. In this particular case I didn't quite get why Google appears on
the right in the video until I saw that the guy was demonstrating Google
Search by searching "google search".

------
KnightWhoSaysNi
"The most important change is that most navigation elements continue to be
visible even when you scroll down. The navigation bar, the search box and the
search options sidebar have a fixed position"

Strange that "position: fixed" hasn't found its way to popular websites before
now. It's been supported by major browsers since the early zeroes (or late
nineties?), the only exception being IE (for which you can easily make a fix).

Here's a page from ten years ago (!) describing "position: fixed":
<http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/menus>

~~~
acqq
<http://derstandard.at/> has fixed pieces of the interface for at least a few
years but I really, really don't like it. Try it yourself. It looks good as
long as you're actually _not_ interested in the material inside. Unless you're
designer of the site showing the features of the site to the boss, you're not
likely to use the menus inside of the fixed areas. But this also explains why
some sites end up having such interfaces. In my view, this is a sign of Google
turning soggy inside as in:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2776046>

~~~
KnightWhoSaysNi
Like all features, "position: fixed" can be applied in useful ways and in not
so useful ways. I agree that Der Standard's way of using it isn't too good,
but overall fixed positions are an excellent feature if you ask me.

------
Lost_BiomedE
It is very distracting to me. It usually is jerky causing me to look at it
each time I scroll. It also takes a second for me to realize where I jumped to
if I used page down, because I can not tell as easily where I am relative to
where I was, visually. This is partly due to loss of relative distances but
also because my eyes have momentarily followed the jerk.

The only fixed that I can handle is a fixed background if there is a large
difference in contrast between the page background and main content
background.

I hope this does not become a norm.

------
bmj
The "Preview" GMail theme has a variation of this, keeping the toolbar in a
fixed position as you scroll. It's not infinite, though, as each inbox "page"
contains 50 messages.

