WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: line length and myth of the fold

for

From: Karl Groves
Date: Apr 18, 2008 12:50PM

As mentioned in the post below, here's just a handful more resources on
line-length and usability:

http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/42/text_length.htm
http://www.webusability.com/article_line_length_12_2002.htm
http://www.usability.gov/pubs/082006news.html
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/Journals/bitpaper_files/Display%20siz
e.htm
http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.1/mcmullin_etal.html



> -----Original Message-----
> From: <EMAIL REMOVED> [mailto:webaim-forum-
> <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Karl Groves
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 9:01 AM
> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] line length and myth of the fold
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: <EMAIL REMOVED> [mailto:webaim-forum-
> > <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Christophe Strobbe
> > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 8:34 AM
> > To: WebAIM Discussion List
> > Subject: [WebAIM] line length and myth of the fold
> >
> > Hi Karl,
> >
> > At 13:51 18/04/2008, Karl Groves wrote:
> > > > I think something like the Jello Mold approach
> > > > (...) is better - the page width (...)
> > > > has both minimum and maximum widths to accommodate
> > > > readability (not so narrow that things break and not so wide that
> > it's
> > > > difficult to read long lines of text).
> > > >
> > >
> > >Not to totally derail this thread, but I'd like to point out that
> the
> > belief
> > >that long lines of text is bad is rather unfounded. I've read a
> > number of
> > >usability studies which have come to the conclusion that reading
> > performance
> > >(speed and accuracy) does not differ significantly between line
> > lengths[1].
> > >Some studies indicate there is a preference difference but I'm not
> > convinced
> > >that's significant enough evidence to avoid long lines of text
> because
> > by
> > >shortening lines of text you also run into issues with content being
> > pushed
> > >below the fold. In my experience observing users in the lab, having
> > >important content placed below the fold is far more likely to cause
> > >information to go unnoticed by users.
> >
> > I'd be very interested in the other studies you know, since line
> > length is now in WCAG 2.0 (SC 1.4.8:
> > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-
> > 20071211/complete.html#visual-audio-contrast-visual-presentation>).
>
> I'll be sure to post them in the next day or so. I certainly wonder
> where
> they came up with 80 characters and who did so.
>
>
> >
> > With regard to content above or below the fold, I thought that there
> > was research debunking this myth. See for example the article at
> > <http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/blasting-the-myth-of>;.
> >
>
> The issue is primarily in the idea that people may not know there is
> content
> below the fold, primarily when the page "looks done" - in other words
> when
> the design of the page gives the impression that everything is above
> the
> fold. I once sat in on a study with a major government website where
> users
> needed to interact with an interface that was designed in such a way
> that
> gave the impression that everything they needed to work with was
> already
> there. Almost every participant missed that important stuff was below
> the
> fold.
>
> Does that mean that we need to make sure everything is above the fold?
> No.
> But what it does mean is that it needs to be readily apparent that
> there is
> content below the fold. I think on a practical level, this means
> *avoiding*
> that illusion of completeness. This is Gestalt psychology 101, really
> (http://graphicdesign.spokanefalls.edu/tutorials/process/gestaltprincip
> les/g
> estaltprinc.htm).
>
> I think it bears mentioning that the Boxes and Arrows article you
> linked
> above cites some automated click tracking study which tracked whether
> or not
> people scrolled. Automated tools are no more suitable for Usability
> than
> they are for Accessibility - actually less so. The idea that scrolling
> is
> OK because people scroll means nothing. What matters is whether or not
> people actually saw what they were looking for and were able to
> complete a
> task successfully and efficiently. To use an analogy suitable for this
> forum, think of this as saying some web page passed an accessibility
> check
> merely because there were alt attributes on images. What matters is
> the
> content of the alt attributes, not whether they exist - again,
> something no
> automated tool can tell that.
>
>
> Karl Groves
>
>
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> >
> > >1 - http://hubel.sfasu.edu/research/textmargin.html is just one of
> > maybe 8
> > >studies I know of.
> > >
> > >Karl Groves
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other
> > "social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but
> > I haven't.
> >
> > --
> > Christophe Strobbe
> > K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
> > Research Group on Document Architectures
> > Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
> > B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
> > BELGIUM
> > tel: +32 16 32 85 51
> > http://www.docarch.be/
> >
> >
> > Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
> >
> >