The myth of the page fold: evidence from user testing
cxpartners.co.uk
cxpartners.co.uk
In Mac OS X i guess Apple caved to popular convention and moved the scroll bars to the right.
People also ignore anything in colored blocks, or that looks like an ad.
Thus ReCaptcha had a huge problem initially with people just "not seeing" it on the forms where it was placed. It looked like an ad.
It appears that people unconsciously set an "attention getting threshold", things that are designed to attract attention go above that threshold and are simply ignored. This seems to be well known hence the various forms of pop-up and pop-over ads that are showing up on sites again now even though they were proven to annoy users to the point of having to derive engineering solutions to the problem.
If you're giving users a specific task to perform on a specific website in a controlled environment, then of course scrolling isn't going to deter them. The argument against scrolling is that if you're trying to attract users to your site---to pick your site over other potential sites---then scrolling will be a factor when people want to make a quick decision if your site is useful or not.
But somewhere along the line, a useful guideline for getting people to stick around and explore a page or a site morphed into a hard rule of "never have anything at all below the fold, ever". Which is frankly stupid.
"Is all key information visible above the fold so users can see it without scrolling?"
Consider the surrounding circumstances to the "pure" information he posts:
1. He says it is SCIENCE!
2. He does not allow for differing levels of user engagement. (If you're interested, you will not behave the same way as somebody who has no interest.)
3. He does not reveal the type of user / type of content being tested. (Are they bored to tears? Is it well-written, captivating content? Is it something relevant to their life?) Would this be hard? Yes. But you cannot evaluate the "facts" without it!
4. He may waffle a little now and again, and say something that's not entirely "my way or the highway" strident -- e.g. "Is all key information visible above the fold?" -- but...
5. He NEVER lists proven counter-examples.
Examples for #5: many "sales letters" of products on the internet (esp. info products) rely on heavily engaging the user's interest FIRST, and then following a build-up-let-down pattern of excitement. Often their critical info -- price, call to action buttons -- are well below "the fold." Waay, way down there... they only reveal it to people who are biting the hook.
And this works. Really, really well. It works because it engages the visitor, and builds suspense, rather than just laying it all in front of them.
But has Nielsen ever addressed this?
Ha!
He uses the attachment that people have to "science," "statistics," and "facts," and exploits it to provide certainty in an an uncertain world.
Too bad it's false certainty.
Since the point of a substantial number of his articles is that quick and dirty usability testing is the only reliable way to make usability decisions I don't think you can reasonably fault him here.
I don't think your account correctly characterizes his approach to usability. I think it correctly characterizes the perception of his approach to usability in many who dismiss him.
That is, he doesn't say "These results are for our site, you should test it yourself for yours. Our findings may not be relevant for your situation." after he's talked about findings or made recommendations.
And he doesn't address situations that are directly in opposition of the findings he does report -- e.g., he has never covered sales letters as I described.
When he does write about "do it yourself" user testing, he does it in separate articles that are only about that topic. They are not situated in the broader context.
He is obviously a very smart person so I don't think that this is accidental.
And he only writes those DIY pieces once or twice a year. Generally speaking his company sells 3-day usability testing workshops for $23,000.
So, let's be realistic here.
Here's an example of one of the rare times when he discloses the actual test data: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html
Usually when he makes claims about, say, readability, no examples are offered. I was shocked to find this one.
You'll notice that nowhere in his explanation of the findings does he conjecture that maybe reading comprehension is low because it's bloody boring AND poorly written, and nobody gives two shits about Nebraska's dubious tourist attractions.
He says maybe it's because the language is "promotional." But, again, deathly boring and irrelevance to user's lives doesn't come into his analysis picture at all.
And he doesn't tell you to test your own content, either.
I have all his books and I've read the vast majority of his articles, too. You can dismiss me as somebody who merely has a "perception" problem, but that doesn't change the effort I've put into it.
PS - He reviewed a book on manipulating customers, through fiddling with neuroscientific knobs, thusly:
---
I highly recommend that you read this [book] for two reasons:
* The book's indispensable design advice will grow your business.
* You must teach your children to recognize this new class of manipulation.
---
So, it's cool when you're only manipulating OTHER people's kids.
I don't know why people think of him as if he's some kind of folk hero.
Don't you think that the selling of $23,000 usability testing workshops might constitute an incentive for him to push for more hands on usability testing rather than the blind acceptance of his findings?
But you said that he is a powerful proponent for low-cost, self-run tests... and he's not, really, as I pointed out. Lukewarm at best, perhaps.
Meanwhile, why do you think he doesn't recommend testing for differences when he makes his announcements regarding findings? Or even mention that they vary?
This is just pure speculation, but it seems as if he's more concerned with sounding authoritative -- so people hire him -- than pointing out the ambiguities in statistical usability research.
I'll point out that patio11's bingo card creator gets more conversions for every single order button he's added, even as they get to the point where they're "above the fold". Your own criticism is much too 'black and white', but I'd say that it is also MYOPIC!
I never said that people had to do it my way, or any way at all.
I said that Nielsen doesn't discuss cases that run counter to his recommendations, and I provided one to prove my point.
As for patio11, I'm happy for him. But let's not get talking about local maximums.
In fact, I know they are true... in many cases.
However, there are quite a few cases where they are not true at all. For example, direct-marketing type sales letters, which work just as well on the internet.
Which is, again, all I said. Nielsen acts as if everything he says is universally applicable, but there are quite a lot of counter-examples that also work exceedingly well. Ergo the findings are not universally applicable.
HN is supposed to be a bastion of scientific thought. What is it about my argument -- that he leaves out evidence -- that is so hard to understand?
It's also an unusual onus to expect him to update his past writings when future evidence that isn't his to display suggests anything other than what he has found.
I can believe that ten years ago people didn't scroll, but instead our behavior changed over time as we adapted to the medium.
So, ten years ago "users don't scroll" was good advice, but designers made the mistake of filing that away in the Known Fact bin without reflecting more carefully and/or actually testing it.
Just a hypothesis.
It depends on the type of page and the type of website.
A nice article illustrating when users want to scroll (and when not) can be found at http://webusability-blog.com/page-fold-fact-or-fiction/. It also gives some good examples of good use of the area above the page fold.
Further, as a commenter on the article pointed out, there's benefit in identifying your audience. Someone on NYT is obviously willing to scroll. Can the same really be said of someone shopping for a luxury car and looking to be wowed?