TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re[2]: list dedicated to Web Site Editing From:"Walker, Arlen P" <Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:06:34 -0600
The Laura LeMay books I have say that people don't like to scroll, so
the best passage length is that which fits on a single screen.
This is a piece of oft-repeated wisdom that I'd like to see tested and
explained more fully.
Given:
A) Three pages with nice, page-oriented graphic content amounting to, say,
22K per page. Navigation among pages is accomplished with a single click.
B) One page with the same page-oriented graphic layout amounting to, say,
32K. (Same textual content, but only 1/3 of the graphic content as the page
layout and navigation stuff doesn't need repeated three times.)
I see the same limitations in each alternative. You need to execute the
same number of mouse clicks to read the text, neither method keeps details
previously read in front of you.
Advantage A: the next page begins at an easily recognizable location, while
B might require a little lost time to re-orient yourself.
Advantage B: jumping to next piece of information is faster than with A, as
browser doesn't have to repeat page layout or get another graphic for page
design to aid navigation, and returning to previous chunk of information is
also faster, as details of page are in memory, rather than on hard drive.
The accepted wisdom is that A is better than B, but I need more than that,
I'm looking for a coherent explanation of why this is the case?
Anecdotal evidence: I'm a regular visitor at a website which firmly
believes in one screen per web page, and at another website which believes
in a logical, rather than physical, chunking of the text, often resulting
in a "page" that I have to scroll down once or twice to read completely. I
find the physically chunked page tedious ("Oh dear, now I have to turn the
page") to interact with, but my interaction with the scrolled page usually
goes unnoticed.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating pages that go on forever; I
wouldn't like to read "War and Peace" on a single web page. But why is
having to scroll once worse than having to load a whole new page?
Or am I just too weird to be a benchmark in this case?
Have fun,
Arlen
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 224
Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
----------------------------------------------
In God we trust; all others must provide data.
----------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
If JCI had an opinion on this, they'd hire someone else to deliver it.
