4 ms·

your image shows that almost half of the page content is under the fold.

matt4077 9y ago
Their image shows that the information density is basically unchanged. That was the point they were trying to make, as a refutation to the grandparent's complaint: "And less actual content, forcing you to scroll or zoom out."
emilfihlman 9y ago
Indeed. This is a stupid update.
debaserab2 9y ago
So what? Is scrolling really that big of a deal? The increased font size and more pronounced page hierarchy make it easier for me to grok the page structure at a glance and navigate to the section I need (since I'm probably not reading the entire page front to bottom if I'm at an MDN link). Why does all information need to be above the fold? It's not like I can interpret everything on the page in the 1000ms necessary it would take me to scroll.
- teacup50 9y ago
  > So what? Is scrolling really that big of a deal? Yes.
  - debaserab2 9y ago
    How?
    - teacup50 9y ago
      Cognitive load of paging. This is not a new and unexplored concept.
      - debaserab2 9y ago
        I call B.S. -- Below the fold arguments only make sense when you can't grasp the purpose of the page without scrolling. You're not supposed to cram every piece of information you can above the fold. The information that is getting cut off in this case is hardly pertinent to the understanding or navigation of the site.
awj 9y ago
...it's documentation, not a news article. 90% of the page content is going to be under the fold regardless.
ceejayoz 9y ago
> your image shows that almost half of the page content is under the fold. No, it doesn't. The Array.prototype.slice() documentation is eight screens high on my Macbook Pro. Note also the difference in vertical size of the two screenshots - you're comparing apples to oranges.
pikzen 9y ago
Except that MDN isn't your hipster startup website with a 20MB hero image that needs to get its point across immediately. You're never going to end up on MDN and say "I have no idea what this is". You're there because you already know what's under the damn fold.

Their image shows that the information density is basically unchanged. That was the point they were trying to make, as a refutation to the grandparent's complaint: "And less actual content, forcing you to scroll or zoom out."

emilfihlman 9y ago

Indeed. This is a stupid update.

debaserab2 9y ago

So what? Is scrolling really that big of a deal? The increased font size and more pronounced page hierarchy make it easier for me to grok the page structure at a glance and navigate to the section I need (since I'm probably not reading the entire page front to bottom if I'm at an MDN link). Why does all information need to be above the fold? It's not like I can interpret everything on the page in the 1000ms necessary it would take me to scroll.

teacup50 9y ago
> So what? Is scrolling really that big of a deal? Yes.
- debaserab2 9y ago
  How?
  - teacup50 9y ago
    Cognitive load of paging. This is not a new and unexplored concept.
    - debaserab2 9y ago
      I call B.S. -- Below the fold arguments only make sense when you can't grasp the purpose of the page without scrolling. You're not supposed to cram every piece of information you can above the fold. The information that is getting cut off in this case is hardly pertinent to the understanding or navigation of the site.

awj 9y ago

...it's documentation, not a news article. 90% of the page content is going to be under the fold regardless.

ceejayoz 9y ago

> your image shows that almost half of the page content is under the fold. No, it doesn't. The Array.prototype.slice() documentation is eight screens high on my Macbook Pro. Note also the difference in vertical size of the two screenshots - you're comparing apples to oranges.

pikzen 9y ago

Except that MDN isn't your hipster startup website with a 20MB hero image that needs to get its point across immediately. You're never going to end up on MDN and say "I have no idea what this is". You're there because you already know what's under the damn fold.