i hate web articles that have each item of list on a different page

[Pulsar]

That's for page load times - not everyone is on [unmetered] broadband and as a retailer you don't want people closing your website because it's loading too slow. Many do give an option to view more or all.

Bull. Shit.

NO one is developing for non-broadband connections. It's for click-though money. Plain and simple.

 

[rh71]

Ya, because everyone is still on dial-up...

which part of what I said is wrong? It doesn't have to be dial-up to be slow. A site like gap can load 233 thumbnails for products all at once.

Bull. Shit.

NO one is developing for non-broadband connections. It's for click-though money. Plain and simple.

Retail sites like forever21, best buy, newegg, etc. don't have click-through ads. Yet they still do that. Maybe you're relatively new to the internet, but when people coded for the web in the 90s, they had to consider bandwidth and that's why there are multiple pages for long lists. There were no ads back then (at least not like today). The practice is simply still in play at least for retail sites.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

buzzfeed is the debil

Meh they put everything in one long list. It's sites like Business Insider and Forbes that do the click through.

Side note, does anyone else's "pop up blocker" go crazy on cnn.com?

 

[HN]

No one codes with consideration for client bandwidth anymore. If anything, it would be about server load. But if youve got shitty bandwidth, you're on your own

 

[Pulsar]

which part of what I said is wrong? It doesn't have to be dial-up to be slow. A site like gap can load 233 thumbnails for products all at once.



Retail sites like forever21, best buy, newegg, etc. don't have click-through ads. Yet they still do that. Maybe you're relatively new to the internet, but when people coded for the web in the 90s, they had to consider bandwidth and that's why there are multiple pages for long lists. There were no ads back then (at least not like today). The practice is simply still in play at least for retail sites.

I've been writing web pages since 96, but that's really immaterial. They do it for a number of reasons. The primary one being ad space, to encourage click-through.

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...ould_load_into_a_single_page_every_time_.html

When bandwidth was that a big a deal, they utilized thumbnails and simply didn't have all the flashy pictures. It's almost never about bandwidth.

 

[Jeff7]

In general bad design, Newegg remains an offender.


So let's see....I need a PCIe RS-232 card for something.
Here we go, A Siig one.
I think I want to have a closer look at the accessories package.
Click the photo.
Get a little box with a zoom slider.

My monitor is 1920x1080.
The viewable Flash window for the image is 638 x 478.

Wow, just shy of VGA resolution. Thank you for the trip to the past.
Wikipedia:

Video Graphics Array (VGA) refers specifically to the display hardware first introduced with the IBM PS/2 line of computers in 1987..

Wonderful. But now that the nostalgia's faded, I'd really like to just see the full image. Or if that's not possible for whatever reason, at least allow the Flash window to be resized.

 

[RossMAN]

http://money.cnn.com/gallery/techno...coolest-gadgets-2014/index.html?iid=SF_T_Lead

 

[Sukhoi]

As irritating as that is, I find what's more aggravating is the new trend to "one format fits all" pages where the pages are ultra-long and filled with giant photos, which probably work great for tablets and smartphones but I don't like them on a desktop/laptop. So much scrolling to get another handful of words.

Example: https://nest.com/thermostat/life-with-nest-thermostat/

Yesssssss I HATE THIS. Desktops still exist! Not everyone is on a mobile device!

 

[Midwayman]

I'd figure catering to mobile users has a lot to do with it. Load times over cellular and making the page fit on a single screen are pretty big incentive.

 

[rh71]

I've been writing web pages since 96, but that's really immaterial. They do it for a number of reasons. The primary one being ad space, to encourage click-through.

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...ould_load_into_a_single_page_every_time_.html

When bandwidth was that a big a deal, they utilized thumbnails and simply didn't have all the flashy pictures. It's almost never about bandwidth.

So why do the retail sites I listed do it without ads then? You said it was all about that, "plain and simple".

 

[who?]

These pages on answers dot com work very poorly.

 

[Jeff7]

So why do the retail sites I listed do it without ads then? You said it was all about that, "plain and simple".

Or the ones where the only dropdown options are 5, 10, or 15 per page.

Where's the option for 50 or 100 per page? It's been quite some time since I've used a 56k modem.

 

[natto fire]

Or the ones where the only dropdown options are 5, 10, or 15 per page.

Where's the option for 50 or 100 per page? It's been quite some time since I've used a 56k modem.

I don't know about you, but when I actually get to the point of about to pull the trigger on a product, I have it narrowed down 3 or 4 options. Most filters are terrible so I actually have the options open in different tabs and could not care less how many options are on each page.

My guess is that these options come from analyzing traffic data, and that anecdotal ATOT posts are not tallied much.

 

[MetalMat]

That's my big issue with Bleacher Report, I like the content but everything is in the slides format and I got so annoyed that I just quit going. Yeah I know I can use the "deslide" link but I would rather just avoid needing it.

 

[Jeff7]

I don't know about you, but when I actually get to the point of about to pull the trigger on a product, I have it narrowed down 3 or 4 options. Most filters are terrible so I actually have the options open in different tabs and could not care less how many options are on each page.

Sometimes I want to be able to sift through numerous options when what I'm looking for doesn't have to be a terribly specific thing. Or maybe I don't know what the retailer calls the thing I'm looking for, so I want to quickly scan over a lot of images to find the thing. Or sometimes their descriptions are just crap, so searching is not going to be too useful to begin with. Or the filters are indeed terrible, so once it is "narrowed down" I'm still left with 140 choices.

My guess is that these options come from analyzing traffic data, and that anecdotal ATOT posts are not tallied much.

Bleh, mainstream data. I'm the sort who can do a lot with keyboard shortcuts. Quite a lot of people don't know that keyboard shortcuts exist. They do most of their interaction using the mouse. So I'm also perhaps not the sort who'd be used in a usability study for mainstream software design. Most of the design choices in modern software tend to hit me like a whack in the knees. So slow. No more keyboard shortcuts. More mousing. Ugh.

Likewise, yuck to website design choices like that. (It's also possible that they just haven't updated their site in a really long time. Some managers or business owners seem to think that putting up a website is a once-and-done expense.)

But maybe there is some studying behind it. I'd love to know why Amazon doesn't even give the choice of changing the number of products per page.
Though their website has gotten damn sluggish in the last few years, so more crap loading would probably bog down a 3.2GHz i7.

 

[Imp]

These pages on answers dot com work very poorly.

Is that the one that splits SENTENCES across multiple pages? Holy shit. I used that thing a few times, but now I completely avoid it.

 

[kranky]

I'd figure catering to mobile users has a lot to do with it. Load times over cellular and making the page fit on a single screen are pretty big incentive.

Passing along this tidbit I just read in a magazine aimed at vendors who sell online. The quote is from the director of internet marketing at a large site.

"The question to ask yourself is, when 60% of your traffic is on touchscreen devices, why are you still basing your designs on desktop monitors?"

Expect even more web retailers to have those long, scrolling pages with giant pictures.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Is that the one that splits SENTENCES across multiple pages? Holy shit. I used that thing a few times, but now I completely avoid it.

Yeah I ran into one of those. Most complete retarded piece of crap coding ever.

"top 10 things blah blah..."

You need to change pages like 5 times and you're still on the first item. I give up and close it.

Mobile browsers are practically like regular browsers now days. There's no reason to design specifically for mobile. My website that I coded in like 2002 actually works fine on mobile. About the only thing one should have to do is maybe make links a bit bigger so it's easier to click. Could be done with just a mobile CSS.

 

[edro]

It's clickbait.
If you're wanting to see the "article", you already fell for it.

 

[Carson Dyle]

I tolerate it occasionally. Depends on the type of 'article'. If it's mostly a series of pictures, yeah I click through them. If it's something to read, less likely. It also depend a LOT on the number. Ten? No problem. Twenty? Probably make it through them all. 100? No way I'm getting past the first few.

 

[Jeff7]

I'd figure catering to mobile users has a lot to do with it. Load times over cellular and making the page fit on a single screen are pretty big incentive.

Passing along this tidbit I just read in a magazine aimed at vendors who sell online. The quote is from the director of internet marketing at a large site.

"The question to ask yourself is, when 60% of your traffic is on touchscreen devices, why are you still basing your designs on desktop monitors?"

Expect even more web retailers to have those long, scrolling pages with giant pictures.

*barf*


XKCD on infinite-scrolling webpages.

 

[phucheneh]

In case anyone hasn't yet mentioned that hover-menus are worse than herpes: they are.

Oh, let me just slide my mouse over to here to click on this and....GODDAMMIT, HOW DID I OPEN THREE MENUS AND SEVEN SUB-MENUS AND THEN END UP WHEREVER THE FUCK I AM?!

 

[HN]

In case anyone hasn't yet mentioned that hover-menus are worse than herpes: they are.

Oh, let me just slide my mouse over to here to click on this and....GODDAMMIT, HOW DID I OPEN THREE MENUS AND SEVEN SUB-MENUS AND THEN END UP WHEREVER THE FUCK I AM?!

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36979837&postcount=11

 

[TwiceOver]

My new hate is for sites that have the content centered on the page and then the entire background covering either side space is clickable to an ad.

 

[VirtualLarry]

In case anyone hasn't yet mentioned that hover-menus are worse than herpes: they are.

Oh, let me just slide my mouse over to here to click on this and....GODDAMMIT, HOW DID I OPEN THREE MENUS AND SEVEN SUB-MENUS AND THEN END UP WHEREVER THE FUCK I AM?!

Hover-menus (Newegg, etc.) aren't absolutely horrible, when you have a mouse at hand. But on a touch-screen? Kind of hard to "hover". On my HP Stream 7, press-and-hold simulates a right-click.