4 ms·

I find these types of sites that break normal browser behavior to be offensive. Why are developers like this and OnSwipe changing native scrolling in favor of j

I find these types of sites that break normal browser behavior to be offensive. Why are developers like this and OnSwipe changing native scrolling in favor of javascript scrolling? What is the benefit, aside from lag, to moving sideways? Web pages aren't magazines, and they shouldn't be. I love javascript but just because something can be done with it, doesn't mean it should be.

yid 15y ago
> web pages aren't magazines, and they shouldn't be. Um...why not? I happen to quite like Flipboard-style magazine layouts. More importantly, why does anyone feel qualified to comment on what the web "should" be? The technology is powerful enough to accomodate new uses, and I call that room for innovation.
mrandre 15y ago
Hi, Andre Behrens, creator of the app. I would argue it is the web itself that is broken. At the very least, it's an infinite web, and there's room for an awful lot of stuff in there, even the parts you don't like or understand. The advantage of moving sideways is that that's how every reading experience a user has ever experienced works, outside their computer. More importantly for us, it's how a newspaper works. The fact that this thing works a lot like a newspaper and they love it is something our customers literally won't shut up about. The simple truth is, the only people I've ever heard complain about the navigation scheme, scrolling, javascript, etc are on Hacker News. For instance, what you are calling lag is the animation. Most people find computer navigation hostile because things move around and they don't know where they are going. Animations give their brain time to process that things are changing. Research over the years suggests that most people think animated transitions are faster, even if they are technically slower. In the case of scrolling, I find scrolling long documents a hostile user interface. It requires a great deal of user interaction and minute control over position. Pagination simply requires "next", "next", "next". I don't think every web site should work this way. But for long form content, it works a treat. And for the record, I didn't use JS just because I could. I used it because it helped me solve my design goals.
- Luyt 15y ago
  I think you're still designing for print, not the web. Your aversion to scrolling seems like a personal preference. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean everybody feels that way, or should be denied scrolling. In a distant past, books used to be scrolls, too ;-)
  - mrandre 15y ago
    In the part of the past where books were scrolls, almost nobody could read, and most of what was written was data. Interestingly, relatively soon after the arrival of paginated books, public reading becomes commonplace. Scrolls are for scribes.
    - cema 15y ago
      relatively soon after the arrival of paginated books, public reading becomes commonplace. Oh no, it was because of the alphabet changed everything. And because some nations required universal education (technically, first among boys). Books (in the codex form, versus scrolls) were indeed very helpful in reading, the way dvd is an improvement over a cassette tape. It made navigation easier (reading in one case, listening in the other). So your example is indeed relevant to the point you are making, but not the way you made it. (IMHO.)
    - carbon8 15y ago
      The reasons the codex format supplanted the scroll format had everything to do with physical properties, specifically that codices use material more economically, are more compact, easier to handle and transport. In fact, as far as reading is concerned, the primary advantage of the codex over the physical scroll was, conversely, also the main advantage of scrolling over pagination on the web: the ability to easily jump to any point in the text.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  Thanks for your response. Why doesn't nytimes.com use this technique?

yid 15y ago

> web pages aren't magazines, and they shouldn't be. Um...why not? I happen to quite like Flipboard-style magazine layouts. More importantly, why does anyone feel qualified to comment on what the web "should" be? The technology is powerful enough to accomodate new uses, and I call that room for innovation.

mrandre 15y ago

Hi, Andre Behrens, creator of the app. I would argue it is the web itself that is broken. At the very least, it's an infinite web, and there's room for an awful lot of stuff in there, even the parts you don't like or understand. The advantage of moving sideways is that that's how every reading experience a user has ever experienced works, outside their computer. More importantly for us, it's how a newspaper works. The fact that this thing works a lot like a newspaper and they love it is something our customers literally won't shut up about. The simple truth is, the only people I've ever heard complain about the navigation scheme, scrolling, javascript, etc are on Hacker News. For instance, what you are calling lag is the animation. Most people find computer navigation hostile because things move around and they don't know where they are going. Animations give their brain time to process that things are changing. Research over the years suggests that most people think animated transitions are faster, even if they are technically slower. In the case of scrolling, I find scrolling long documents a hostile user interface. It requires a great deal of user interaction and minute control over position. Pagination simply requires "next", "next", "next". I don't think every web site should work this way. But for long form content, it works a treat. And for the record, I didn't use JS just because I could. I used it because it helped me solve my design goals.

Luyt 15y ago
I think you're still designing for print, not the web. Your aversion to scrolling seems like a personal preference. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean everybody feels that way, or should be denied scrolling. In a distant past, books used to be scrolls, too ;-)
- mrandre 15y ago
  In the part of the past where books were scrolls, almost nobody could read, and most of what was written was data. Interestingly, relatively soon after the arrival of paginated books, public reading becomes commonplace. Scrolls are for scribes.
  - cema 15y ago
    relatively soon after the arrival of paginated books, public reading becomes commonplace. Oh no, it was because of the alphabet changed everything. And because some nations required universal education (technically, first among boys). Books (in the codex form, versus scrolls) were indeed very helpful in reading, the way dvd is an improvement over a cassette tape. It made navigation easier (reading in one case, listening in the other). So your example is indeed relevant to the point you are making, but not the way you made it. (IMHO.)
  - carbon8 15y ago
    The reasons the codex format supplanted the scroll format had everything to do with physical properties, specifically that codices use material more economically, are more compact, easier to handle and transport. In fact, as far as reading is concerned, the primary advantage of the codex over the physical scroll was, conversely, also the main advantage of scrolling over pagination on the web: the ability to easily jump to any point in the text.
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
Thanks for your response. Why doesn't nytimes.com use this technique?