3 ms·
I thought this part was interesting: > The New York Times provided one of the few available data points, stating that only a fraction of readers interact with
by wcedmisten 4y ago
I thought this part was interesting:
> The New York Times provided one of the few available data points, stating that only a fraction of readers interact with non-static content, and suggested that designers should move away from interactivity
Then their citation [1] mentions: "Why? ... Users just want to scroll"
It seems like this is the approach a lot of interactive articles use these days, where most of the "interactive" content is still shown by default as the user scrolls.
[1] https://github.com/archietse/malofiej-2016/blob/master/tse-malofiej-2016-slides.pdf https://github.com/archietse/malofiej-2016/blob/master/tse-m...
- Veuxdo 4y agoVery interesting. I'm working on on app that has "slides" users click a button to progress through. Now I'm wondering if users would prefer to "scroll" through the content instead.
- sethherr 4y agoI can say there has never been a time where I’ve preferred having a button instead of scrolling. I’ve interacted with sites where scrolling locked in to pages, and I thought that was fine (As I say this, that sounds like “swiping” - which I think is fine and feels intuitive).
- Kinrany 4y agoNote that this is the same as us programmers preferring to have a single interface for many things instead of several mutually incompatible ones. Also similar to how iterators are a fantastic API in most cases: lots of things can be built on top of getting the next item.
- staunton 4y agoThe number to compare to would be the fraction of "readers" who actually read (most of) the article. I have a hunch it's also a small fraction.