Below the Fold
- Started
- Last post
- 18 Responses
- glen
I have a client whose main concern over the years has been keeping a majority of his site content "above the fold" (within 800X600). I was wondering if any of you have any reference materials in regards to this issue... websites are preferable.
- glen0
Thanks.
Wouldn't you think that this invisible "fold" that they are so concerned about isn't consistent? Meaning, you can't say that "this content needs to be above "#" pixels...
There are other things to consider besides screen resolution... broswers being one of them. There are so many variations of browsers and how you have them set up... which eat up screen realestate.
- jevad0
not really...as long as all your primary and secondary links are above 450/500px it's all good...
- djenders0
I deal with this on a daily basis for a major media news site.
The fact is I need to have everything above the 440-460px mark to keep people happy. As screen resolutions continue to get higher hopefully I can start designing for the larger screen audience, but until then I need to keep the lower res in mind.
For the most part browsers don't even matter. As much as I, or anyone else, loves Mozilla, Safari, or Netscape the fact is most people are on IE. On a site where we see 50+ Million page views a month the other browsers account for less than 3% of our audience.
If you know some of these things you'll have an easier time working with the fold.
Of course you can't account for browser tool bars, etc. And honestly it's not worth it to install JavaScript to test everyone's resolution.
I'd start with about 440px and go from there.
Good luck,
Dennis.
- sauceruney0
well that didn't work
- k0na_an0k0
your client is a f-ing moron who needs to get with the times. new monitors come preset 1024x768.
- ribit0
and thats the low end.
Less than 15% of our visitors are on screens smaller than 1024x768...
DIE 800x600 DIE!!
- djenders0
Just because your visitors are on something bigger than 800x600 doesn't mean everyone is.
For the most part the audience I deal with is split...
7-10% less than 800x600
47% 800x600
39% 1024x768+
3% UnknownIf you really take you job seriously you'll have a better approach than "Fuck those other people"...
Dennis.
- k0na_an0k0
if you ever hope to change the old industry standard from 800xsuxhundred you'll do something about it and push the 1024x768 size.
kOna.
- toastie0
that really depends on what your website is for and what your target audience is. It's the same with the weight of the website. There are plenty of people out there that are on 56K still, and the trend that 'everyone is on broadband' is becoming disturbingly popular.
- whiteSneaks0
if you are building a site for the masses (such as news or commerce) than you had better keep things in the 800x600 range. Nothing wrong with a vertical scroll just keep vital elements above that fold. I often have items below the fold but make sure part of that element is above to hopefully encourage the user to scroll.
- BonSeff0
i love designing for 800x600
and that makes me pretty happy/
but what really makes my socks go up and down is making all my sites look and work properly in ns4./sarcasm
fuck the blue-hairs
- djenders0
I agree with ya toastie...
It's great to try and push the envelope, but that is going to become increasingly hard to do.
Kona..name me one site that is doing that now, that is mainstream. You can't. ESPN is the only one coming close to using that extra space and they do it with screen res testing.
It's only gonna get tougher to push the envelope. If IE becomes an upgrade only when you upgrade Windows we'll be designing for a browser that change every 4-6 years.
Know thy audience. I'm all for pushing standards and making logical design changes, but that doesn't mean we can do something and desregard a large segment of viewers.
And doing that is a childish stance. Trying to force people into a new Flash player, higher res, or a larger download needs to be thought out well and you definitely need to know the impact on your financials, viewership, and production time/costs.
Dennis.
- djenders0
I agree with ya toastie...
It's great to try and push the envelope, but that is going to become increasingly hard to do.
Kona..name me one site that is doing that now, that is mainstream. You can't. ESPN is the only one coming close to using that extra space and they do it with screen res testing.
It's only gonna get tougher to push the envelope. If IE becomes an upgrade only when you upgrade Windows we'll be designing for a browser that change every 4-6 years.
Know thy audience. I'm all for pushing standards and making logical design changes, but that doesn't mean we can do something and desregard a large segment of viewers.
And doing that is a childish stance. Trying to force people into a new Flash player, higher res, or a larger download needs to be thought out well and you definitely need to know the impact on your financials, viewership, and production time/costs.
Dennis.
- glen0
My biggest problem with this whole "above the fold" issue is the fact that most, if not all, users expect to scroll vertically. All major sites do it in some capacity. To try and fit your entire site within 8X6 is ludacris. It either hinders readability because you're trying to fit a lot of content in a small amount of space or you're burying important content inside the site.
It doesn't take much to scroll...
(horizontal scroll is a different issue all together!)
- jevad0
"To try and fit your entire site within 8X6 is ludacris."
No you're missing the point there - you don't have to fit your entire f-ing site in it - jsut the navigation and important links and body copy. Vertical scrolling is not a bad thing.
- glen0
I'm not missing the point... the client is.
They have grabbed onto this idea that ALL the content needs to be above the fold... or at least 90% of it.