4 ms·
I agree, the 37 Signals page doesn't disprove the value of the top fold. The argument for content above the fold was never entirely about people not reading bel
by imjk 15y ago
I agree, the 37 Signals page doesn't disprove the value of the top fold. The argument for content above the fold was never entirely about people not reading below it (even for newspapers). It's about above the first impression you give to a user and enticing her to stay engaged. There's definitely benefit to getting certain information across in that first impression when they land on your page.
- dspillett 15y agoExactly. Above "the fold" should be what is needed to draw the user into looking further down. A squashed up mess of many details and buttons/links, which is what often follows from following the "everything above the fold" rule, is not going to do that. Unlike a newspaper that needs to attract you as you glance towards a rack containing it and other similar publications, a website already has your attention to an extent and as you've probably just followed a link (rather than the site having opened in a pop-up/under window) you chosen to be there and have at least a vague idea about what to expect - the first half-screen does not need to compete with other half-screens to grab the user's attention, it just needs to not put them off (in the case mentioned in powertower's post, by mentioning cost too early).