Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Tests an Interface Optimized for Infinite Scrolling

googlesystem.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 27 posts

Re: Google Tests an Interface Optimized for Infinite Scrolling

#11

Post by acqq »

KnightWhoSaysNi wrote: post #9

"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 m…

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

Re: Google Tests an Interface Optimized for Infinite Scrolling

#12

Post by p9idf »

acqq wrote: post #5

"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 emp…

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

Re: Google Tests an Interface Optimized for Infinite Scrolling

#13

Post by nodata »

p9idf wrote: post #12
acqq wrote: post #5

"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 emp…

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 th…

Have you got a second picture showing how it would be better?

Re: Google Tests an Interface Optimized for Infinite Scrolling

#14

Post by KnightWhoSaysNi »

acqq wrote: post #11
KnightWhoSaysNi wrote: post #9

"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 m…

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 inter…

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.

Re: Google Tests an Interface Optimized for Infinite Scrolling

#15

Post by experimental »

p9idf wrote: post #12
acqq wrote: post #5

"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 emp…

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 th…

A reminder: you can use Alt to bring up the menu bar if you hide it.

If you're using TabMixPlus, there may be an add-on that gives you better performance.

Re: Google Tests an Interface Optimized for Infinite Scrolling

#17

Post by Pewpewarrows »

p9idf wrote: post #12
acqq wrote: post #5

"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 emp…

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 th…

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.

Re: Google Tests an Interface Optimized for Infinite Scrolling

#18

Post by repsilat »

nodata wrote: post #3

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.

My favourite way to combine pagination with infinite scrolling (for reading, at least) is to use columns - the line after the bottom of the first column is at the top of the second column, and scrolling down scrolls all columns along line by line. Scrolling left and right snaps to columns, and scrolling right by one column is equivalent to scrolling down by one page. Scrolling right by one page is equivalent to scrolling down by page_height (in lines) times page_width (in columns).

Re: Google Tests an Interface Optimized for Infinite Scrolling

#19

Post by p9idf »

nodata wrote: post #13
p9idf wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Have you got a second picture showing how it would be better?

This is the gist of it. http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4007/screenwaste2.png

Re: Google Tests an Interface Optimized for Infinite Scrolling

#20

Post by p9idf »

Pewpewarrows wrote: post #17
p9idf wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

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…

I would design for both of your made up demographics. And in both cases I would preserve the page metaphor by not using frames.
Post reply on HN