4 ms·

That site is horrible. First it scrolls horizontally and then it switches to vertical towards the end. Why do "designers" have to reinvent simple things again a

That site is horrible. First it scrolls horizontally and then it switches to vertical towards the end. Why do "designers" have to reinvent simple things again and again? Is there nothing better to do?

nameequalsmain 8y ago
I agree, but I gotta give it to them that it works great with javascript disabled. Becomes a normal, vertical-scroll website. Better that with javascript in my opinion.
- cm2187 8y ago
  I did that for many years but got fed up of landing on blogs that would display a blank page because you absolutely need javascript to render a few paragraphs of text in a browser.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Maybe it should be a vertical scroll site no matter what? What does horizontal scrolling add?
fermienrico 8y ago
I couldn't agree more, why is a simple vertically scrolling page something that needs to be "spiced" up? I couldn't find a way to swipe on my ThinkPad non-touch laptop. I ended up using right arrow keys.
aikah 8y ago
I'd argue while the UX is questionable (panning the page right to left while the user scroll down), the website loads pretty fast, which is a good thing, and the scrolling is smooth. The page also weights less than 14 MB. Here is an example of horrible UX plus horrible loading time plus janky scrolling brought you by Google. 60 seconds after the page was open the content of the top of the page was still not done loading (72MB before I closed the page). https://store.google.com/us/product/pixel_3 https://store.google.com/us/product/pixel_3 I think it's hardly just a matter of design here.
- moolcool 8y ago
  >less than 14 MB It's kind of crazy to me that even that's considered low
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Agree. And that people feel the need to say "At least it works without Javascript". Our standards have become really low. I would argue that for product sites like this we have massively regressed over the last 10-15 years. Sites that used be easy to read and find information have become a nightmare of one useful paragraph per page.
  - mikestew 8y ago
    Well, I guess it's a little crazy if all you were expecting was 8-bit graphics. But for content like that, yeah, I'm amazed it fits in 14MB.
  - Zarel 8y ago
    I remember when Firefox 2.0 came out, it was 6 MB. Way more impressive, though, was Opera 9 at 5 MB, which, unlike Firefox, also had a built-in email client, IRC client, download manager, BitTorrent client, ad blocker, debugger (Firebug was an extension at the time), sync, and several other impressive features.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    It’s mostly high-res images, so I think that might be OK in this case.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      Why do they need these monster images?
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        So it looks nice when people browse the website on high-resolution screens?
cal5k 8y ago
Even worse, agencies will now see side-scrolling websites as "in" again. Expect to see a return of the dreaded side-scrolling corporate website :-P
addedlovely 8y ago
Horizontal scrolling...you try it once because you think it might be cool - then you realise somethings are an archetype that shouldn't be played with, like vertical scrolling websites.
CGamesPlay 8y ago
Why does using two-finger scroll vertically result in the page moving sideways? I think my touchpad driver is messed up, better visit the genius bar.
baud147258 8y ago
Hey on IE it just scrolls vertically from start to end. To bad the rest of IE sucks.
Dirlewanger 8y ago
Yup, this is what happens when you have a in-house design department (I don't know if Apple does though to be honest). They always need to be working on something which means they will always be trying out new things, for better or worse. It's how we ended up with the YouTube and reddit redesigns, both universally disliked.
AdamCraven 8y ago
The first marketing picture shows a landscape iPad as the main image to help connect you to the fact that it's not a tablet, but a computer. I think the side scrolling is conscious choice which is supposed to connect you to that fact as well. I don't expect the horizontal scrolling decision will carry on longer than this page.

nameequalsmain 8y ago

I agree, but I gotta give it to them that it works great with javascript disabled. Becomes a normal, vertical-scroll website. Better that with javascript in my opinion.

cm2187 8y ago
I did that for many years but got fed up of landing on blogs that would display a blank page because you absolutely need javascript to render a few paragraphs of text in a browser.
maxxxxx 8y ago
Maybe it should be a vertical scroll site no matter what? What does horizontal scrolling add?

fermienrico 8y ago

I couldn't agree more, why is a simple vertically scrolling page something that needs to be "spiced" up? I couldn't find a way to swipe on my ThinkPad non-touch laptop. I ended up using right arrow keys.

aikah 8y ago

I'd argue while the UX is questionable (panning the page right to left while the user scroll down), the website loads pretty fast, which is a good thing, and the scrolling is smooth. The page also weights less than 14 MB. Here is an example of horrible UX plus horrible loading time plus janky scrolling brought you by Google. 60 seconds after the page was open the content of the top of the page was still not done loading (72MB before I closed the page). https://store.google.com/us/product/pixel_3 https://store.google.com/us/product/pixel_3 I think it's hardly just a matter of design here.

moolcool 8y ago
>less than 14 MB It's kind of crazy to me that even that's considered low
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Agree. And that people feel the need to say "At least it works without Javascript". Our standards have become really low. I would argue that for product sites like this we have massively regressed over the last 10-15 years. Sites that used be easy to read and find information have become a nightmare of one useful paragraph per page.
- mikestew 8y ago
  Well, I guess it's a little crazy if all you were expecting was 8-bit graphics. But for content like that, yeah, I'm amazed it fits in 14MB.
- Zarel 8y ago
  I remember when Firefox 2.0 came out, it was 6 MB. Way more impressive, though, was Opera 9 at 5 MB, which, unlike Firefox, also had a built-in email client, IRC client, download manager, BitTorrent client, ad blocker, debugger (Firebug was an extension at the time), sync, and several other impressive features.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  It’s mostly high-res images, so I think that might be OK in this case.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Why do they need these monster images?
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      So it looks nice when people browse the website on high-resolution screens?

cal5k 8y ago

Even worse, agencies will now see side-scrolling websites as "in" again. Expect to see a return of the dreaded side-scrolling corporate website :-P

addedlovely 8y ago

Horizontal scrolling...you try it once because you think it might be cool - then you realise somethings are an archetype that shouldn't be played with, like vertical scrolling websites.

CGamesPlay 8y ago

Why does using two-finger scroll vertically result in the page moving sideways? I think my touchpad driver is messed up, better visit the genius bar.

baud147258 8y ago

Hey on IE it just scrolls vertically from start to end. To bad the rest of IE sucks.

Dirlewanger 8y ago

Yup, this is what happens when you have a in-house design department (I don't know if Apple does though to be honest). They always need to be working on something which means they will always be trying out new things, for better or worse. It's how we ended up with the YouTube and reddit redesigns, both universally disliked.

AdamCraven 8y ago

The first marketing picture shows a landscape iPad as the main image to help connect you to the fact that it's not a tablet, but a computer. I think the side scrolling is conscious choice which is supposed to connect you to that fact as well. I don't expect the horizontal scrolling decision will carry on longer than this page.