Re: Theory of Page Length

To quote Roger Black... "Just as 75 percent of people will only read the top
half of a folded newspaper most browsers will never scroll"

75% of people look at the screen length of the page, then if they're like me
they may then quickly scroll to the bottom and then close the browser if its
a long page with to much info... Everyone browses so fast that you have to
catch they're attention very fast, that means putting all your content on
one page is just going to scare them away. "No one reads anything!"

Ben King - MCP
benk(at)cyrustech.com
Cyrus Technologies
http://www.cyrustech.com
ICQ# 10638430

-----Original Message-----
From: Spanky, Rhubarb 3.14159265 <spanky(at)ediblebrain.com>
To: hwg-theory(at)hwg.org <hwg-theory(at)hwg.org>
Date: Friday, August 28, 1998 11:27 AM
Subject: Theory of Page Length


>I joined this "theory" list a little over a month ago and haven't seen
>much "theory" going on.  The problem seems to be that all the good
>"theory" discussions seem to happen on other lists due to comments on
>replies to questions.  Soon discussions that start out to have something
>to do with that list turn into discussions on theory.
>
>I suggest that we bring topics over from other lists we each subscribe
>to.  We can bring up points that we read on other lists and add our
>thoughts on it here.  I think the idea of a theory list is a good one
>and I'd like to see it get rolling.
>
>There's a good thread right now on the Techniques list that turned into
>a theory discussion (with everyone ending their comments with "maybe we
>should discuss this in theory").
>
>So let's bring it up here.
>
>The idea is what is better, long pages with no links or short pages with
>a lot of links to the next pages... and why and when are they better?
>
>Here's the original question:
>
>"...I have a client that, for some reason, doesn't understand why one
>should not create a web page that is extremely lengthy;  they feel that,
>instead of using links, everything could be all in one, incredibly long
>page..."
>
>There have been arguments for and against.  _For_ small pages is
>regarding attention spans, reading too much material, download time,
>scrolling problems, and look.  _Against_ small pages is regarding
>printability, the trouble of clicking through links, e-mailing info to
>someone, and that with text and few images it can download as fast as a
>small page with a large image.
>
>David Meadows gave this link:
>
>"For an excellent argument of why you should *not* split your
>pages, see:
>
>        http://www.pdr-is.com/infoaxcs.htm  ..."
>
>
>David Heller wrote:
>
>"...In a recent article by Sun Micro. They state that people don't read
>the web, they browse the web ... why is it then that we are writing
>content the same for the web as we do as other media?..."
>
>I think that's an excellent point!  My feelings are that, for the most
>part, people want to see a page quickly and find exactly what they're
>looking for.  If they don't, they're off to browse something else.  I
>think you need something fast and slick to grab the attention of most.
>I feel that you need a MTV style on opening and then ease into lengthy
>pages from there.  Of course, that may not be the best design for a page
>on statistics of test scores of new students entering the California
>State University system... sometimes people just want specific info no
>matter how long it takes to load.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Spanky
>
>--
>
>| Spanky mailto:spanky(at)ediblebrain.com
>| URL: http://www.ediblebrain.com
>| "Those who hear not the music
>| think the dancers mad."
>
>

HWG hwg-theory mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA