4 ms·

I don't understand this take at all. Why would you bury your navigation on your (hypothetical) marketing site in the footer on mobile? Most users don't even scr

I don't understand this take at all. Why would you bury your navigation on your (hypothetical) marketing site in the footer on mobile? Most users don't even scroll far enough to make it to the footer and they certainly wouldn't expect the navigation there.

DaveSchmindel 3y ago
> The biggest headache when coming across these menus on the web is the complete disregard for accessibility.
- twelve40 3y ago
  placing the links at the bottom is very bizzare and not a great improvement to accessibility because nobody in the world expects those links there and its hard to even scroll there. If one is worried about accessibility maybe have both, why not, because I found the footer to be less intuitive and convenient.
  - usr1106 3y ago
    It's easy to scroll there. Just click the link at the top. Did it on my 10 year old mobile phone and it worked. The blog post says users are conditioned. That's exactly the problem. The author hopes that users would be conditioned to find a site map at the bottom. I have the feeling 15-20 years ago in the ages of pure HTML that was more common. Nowadays 99% of the users don't learn that. It wouldn't be hard or impossible to learn. It's just that marketing driven design for fancy UI has ruined accessibility because those user have no voice.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      What if you're not at the top, but in the middle? What if this was a 5000-word or 10k-word article? Would you add random nav items here and there?
- methodical 3y ago
  I read that part, but I don't think trading off massive amounts of usability for the majority of people to slightly increase the usability for the minority is the right decision in almost any case.
mikae1 3y ago
> Why would you bury your navigation on your (hypothetical) marketing site in the footer on mobile? There's a link in the header to the nav element at the bottom. I think it works.
- jdiff 3y ago
  It works like setting up a yard sale with nothing actually in your yard but a sign that says "the good stuff's around back ;)" Yes, the necessary information is technically conveyed, but what's improved by this over headers or hamburgers? You'd be better off just having a fat header with all your links.
- waboremo 3y ago
  Which by the way is horrible accessibility wise (by default) because if there are other links on the page, it scrolls right back up to them when you navigate them with the keyboard, negating the entire point of the shortcut.
- Kwpolska 3y ago
  I think it doesn’t, and it’s not even necessary. The name “sitemap” is very unintuitive. For this site specifically, all the links could comfortably fit in the header: https://i.imgur.com/7VH4UJ6.png https://i.imgur.com/7VH4UJ6.png
- mattnewton 3y ago
  A button that scrolls you to the bottom where all the links are really isn’t that different from a button that shows all the links in an overlay is it?
deltarholamda 3y ago
>Why would you bury your navigation on your (hypothetical) marketing site in the footer on mobile? I've been on some sites where the hamburger menu was atrocious and/or unhelpful. When I encounter this, I will often just scroll to the bottom, where a lot of templates will put the "sitemap" stuff, usually with more descriptive text, so I can then find what I'm looking for. It's not ideal, but people design mobile sites as if they're applying for a graphic designer job. Mobile design has become "smoosh it till it fits," and it just doesn't work well. It's a small screen, operated by a meatsack with a single giant thumb, who is probably driving 127 mph through a suburban neighborhood. It's a lot more than just "flow the three columns into one" kind of problem.

DaveSchmindel 3y ago

> The biggest headache when coming across these menus on the web is the complete disregard for accessibility.

twelve40 3y ago
placing the links at the bottom is very bizzare and not a great improvement to accessibility because nobody in the world expects those links there and its hard to even scroll there. If one is worried about accessibility maybe have both, why not, because I found the footer to be less intuitive and convenient.
- usr1106 3y ago
  It's easy to scroll there. Just click the link at the top. Did it on my 10 year old mobile phone and it worked. The blog post says users are conditioned. That's exactly the problem. The author hopes that users would be conditioned to find a site map at the bottom. I have the feeling 15-20 years ago in the ages of pure HTML that was more common. Nowadays 99% of the users don't learn that. It wouldn't be hard or impossible to learn. It's just that marketing driven design for fancy UI has ruined accessibility because those user have no voice.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    What if you're not at the top, but in the middle? What if this was a 5000-word or 10k-word article? Would you add random nav items here and there?
methodical 3y ago
I read that part, but I don't think trading off massive amounts of usability for the majority of people to slightly increase the usability for the minority is the right decision in almost any case.

mikae1 3y ago

> Why would you bury your navigation on your (hypothetical) marketing site in the footer on mobile? There's a link in the header to the nav element at the bottom. I think it works.

jdiff 3y ago
It works like setting up a yard sale with nothing actually in your yard but a sign that says "the good stuff's around back ;)" Yes, the necessary information is technically conveyed, but what's improved by this over headers or hamburgers? You'd be better off just having a fat header with all your links.
waboremo 3y ago
Which by the way is horrible accessibility wise (by default) because if there are other links on the page, it scrolls right back up to them when you navigate them with the keyboard, negating the entire point of the shortcut.
Kwpolska 3y ago
I think it doesn’t, and it’s not even necessary. The name “sitemap” is very unintuitive. For this site specifically, all the links could comfortably fit in the header: https://i.imgur.com/7VH4UJ6.png https://i.imgur.com/7VH4UJ6.png
mattnewton 3y ago
A button that scrolls you to the bottom where all the links are really isn’t that different from a button that shows all the links in an overlay is it?

deltarholamda 3y ago

>Why would you bury your navigation on your (hypothetical) marketing site in the footer on mobile? I've been on some sites where the hamburger menu was atrocious and/or unhelpful. When I encounter this, I will often just scroll to the bottom, where a lot of templates will put the "sitemap" stuff, usually with more descriptive text, so I can then find what I'm looking for. It's not ideal, but people design mobile sites as if they're applying for a graphic designer job. Mobile design has become "smoosh it till it fits," and it just doesn't work well. It's a small screen, operated by a meatsack with a single giant thumb, who is probably driving 127 mph through a suburban neighborhood. It's a lot more than just "flow the three columns into one" kind of problem.