I went to the site, tried clicking the penguin, then the iceberg, then the article squares at the top. Saw something about how I can't spell.
I then came back to HN.
I had second thoughts. I returned to the site and THEN noticed I could scroll down.
...
I get it, we're all so tech savvy, but I'm telling you, the pixels above the fold are extremely important. If they don't MAKE you want to scroll down, many people will not.
This is a very real distinction that should be included in these fold discussions. Many of these pro/con arguments fail to take into account the content of the page that is above the fold. If the content above the fold does not visually lead you to the conclusion that there is content below the fold, users will not go there.
I'd bet that many people did not know to scroll down on the author's site because what's above the fold doesn't tell the user that there is content below it. Had the author, say, moved the text down so that it was bisected by the fold, more readers would scroll. Things like horizontal lines and paragraph endings just above the fold signal to the user that the page is "done." Other cues, such as bisected text or obviously bisected images, tell the user the opposite.
To use those design tenants we just need more space. If that means moving the meat of the page below the fold and keeping a nice hook up at the top then I believe that's the way future web design patterns will go.
http://www.barney.com/usa/index.asp
It is entirely above the fold.
I can't believe that even semi-literate adults do not usually at least glance at large, simple text on a page like that.