I'm not sure that I understand the point of contention. By "fold", don't we mean any part of a page that is not by default viewable upon first loading it? Doe

I'm not sure that I understand the point of contention. By "fold", don't we mean any part of a page that is not by default viewable upon first loading it? Does anyone not believe that click-thru rates on a call-to-action button in an area initially visible will be significantly higher than if the button was located on an area of the page that required use of the scroll bar? Even most grandparents understand that they can scroll to see more of a page, but they might not deem it worthwhile. At least implicitly, I bet people think, "What's the probability of something good existing down/over there, and does that probability coupled with the value of that thing to me make it worthwhile to scroll?" If this is true, it creates a feedback loop which exacerbates the "problem". The more that web designers take this thought process into account, the more they'll put the good stuff in the initially viewable area. Then, because there will be less good stuff found by scrolling, users will lower their estimates of the probability of its existence. Then, designers will have even more incentive... This has probably already happened. I'm not even sure if I think that requiring scrolling is a good UI approach for many sites. I don't like it when I have to scroll back up to reach navigation UI. For Wikipedia, it's great, but the en.m.wikipedia.org seems to be designed with additional subpages to avoid lots of thumb action. tl;dr - What's the controversy? If I want to make a site that people actually use/buy from/etc., then I'd be a damned fool if I didn't take into account their behaviors.