5 ms·

Just because people implement them poorly doesn't mean they are inherently bad. Scrolling is easier and more enjoyable than clicking. However, basic features li

Just because people implement them poorly doesn't mean they are inherently bad. Scrolling is easier and more enjoyable than clicking. However, basic features like back/forward remembering your location is vital. And it is probably a good idea to provide some pagination tools even with infinite scrolling. Discourse does a pretty good job of it. http://www.discourse.org/ http://www.discourse.org/ or if you just want to try it http://discuss.emberjs.com/t/ember-cli-the-ramcat-way/7666/18 http://discuss.emberjs.com/t/ember-cli-the-ramcat-way/7666/1...

pbreit 11y ago
They aren't inherently bad but they are inherently easy to misuse and implement poorly. Which actually does support restraint in deciding to use them. One thing I see frequently which is preposterous is infinite scroll on pages that actually have a footer which is pretty much impossible to access.
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  Pretty sure Facebook used to do that with the footer.
  - joeframbach 11y ago
    The workaround to get to the "developers" link was to mash the escape key while scrolling. Those were the days.
- gcatalfamo 11y ago
  YES! For sometime Facebook had it! I needed to access the FB's dev section and it was like a clicking contest. When they moved it to the right, I had already memorized the website.
cjensen 11y ago
Browsers do not and should not have infinite memory. Each time an infiscroll website scrolls down, more memory is consumed. On my iPad1, that's a guaranteed insta-crash for Safari. What is a crash on an iPad1 is a major slowdown on a netbook. In five years when web pages get even heavier, it'll be a crash on a netbook too.
- bduerst 11y ago
  Couldn't you use a script to remove elements at the top of an infinite scroll page? Would that remove it from browser memory?
  - pipeep 11y ago
    Some implementations do this, but then it breaks ctrl+f.
    - scott_karana 11y ago
      Not necessarily... just like how another poster mention's Tumblr's use of empty divs to keep the scrollbar position happy without sucking up resources, couldn't mixed-resource divs be replaced with text-only divs? Then search works fine, and memory still doesn't balloon (much). Eg: <div>Cool meme: <embed>...</embed><img></img></div> Goes to: <div>Cool meme:</div> Even more work in implementation, admittedly. ;)
  - ChristianBundy 11y ago
    That's The Right Way™ of doing it.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    This seems like the way to do it. You basically have the browser load in pages of content, keep x pages above the viewport, y pages below ready to scroll on to, then you're holding x+y pages. You remove pages when scrolled far enough past and add pages to keep y-1 pages in hand. The problem then is that a user might scroll through a lot of content and then choose to scroll back - eg if they're sampling for quality first and then selecting on a subsequent pass. How do pdf viewers handle this wrt memory conservation. If you have a 1000 page pdf, scroll through a couple of hundred pages (using a infinite scroll type view), what does the viewer do with viewed content, it has to cache it somehow, right? Maybe the infinite scroll needs to be more accomodated by the browsers rather than just not used. I know in certain circumstances (image search, reddit on mobile) that I find it useful.
acomms 11y ago
Agreed - nicely done
cscharenberg 11y ago
I am really curious is there is data on "Scrolling is easier and more enjoyable than clicking". That seems like it requires evidence from trials on a variety of different types of webpages. I can imagine if you are browsing visual items like clothing, art, memes, etc the scrolling flow is great. However when reading long documents or forums it may be the opposite.

pbreit 11y ago

They aren't inherently bad but they are inherently easy to misuse and implement poorly. Which actually does support restraint in deciding to use them. One thing I see frequently which is preposterous is infinite scroll on pages that actually have a footer which is pretty much impossible to access.

wlesieutre 11y ago
Pretty sure Facebook used to do that with the footer.
- joeframbach 11y ago
  The workaround to get to the "developers" link was to mash the escape key while scrolling. Those were the days.
gcatalfamo 11y ago
YES! For sometime Facebook had it! I needed to access the FB's dev section and it was like a clicking contest. When they moved it to the right, I had already memorized the website.

cjensen 11y ago

Browsers do not and should not have infinite memory. Each time an infiscroll website scrolls down, more memory is consumed. On my iPad1, that's a guaranteed insta-crash for Safari. What is a crash on an iPad1 is a major slowdown on a netbook. In five years when web pages get even heavier, it'll be a crash on a netbook too.

bduerst 11y ago
Couldn't you use a script to remove elements at the top of an infinite scroll page? Would that remove it from browser memory?
- pipeep 11y ago
  Some implementations do this, but then it breaks ctrl+f.
  - scott_karana 11y ago
    Not necessarily... just like how another poster mention's Tumblr's use of empty divs to keep the scrollbar position happy without sucking up resources, couldn't mixed-resource divs be replaced with text-only divs? Then search works fine, and memory still doesn't balloon (much). Eg: <div>Cool meme: <embed>...</embed><img></img></div> Goes to: <div>Cool meme:</div> Even more work in implementation, admittedly. ;)
- ChristianBundy 11y ago
  That's The Right Way™ of doing it.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  This seems like the way to do it. You basically have the browser load in pages of content, keep x pages above the viewport, y pages below ready to scroll on to, then you're holding x+y pages. You remove pages when scrolled far enough past and add pages to keep y-1 pages in hand. The problem then is that a user might scroll through a lot of content and then choose to scroll back - eg if they're sampling for quality first and then selecting on a subsequent pass. How do pdf viewers handle this wrt memory conservation. If you have a 1000 page pdf, scroll through a couple of hundred pages (using a infinite scroll type view), what does the viewer do with viewed content, it has to cache it somehow, right? Maybe the infinite scroll needs to be more accomodated by the browsers rather than just not used. I know in certain circumstances (image search, reddit on mobile) that I find it useful.

acomms 11y ago

Agreed - nicely done

cscharenberg 11y ago

I am really curious is there is data on "Scrolling is easier and more enjoyable than clicking". That seems like it requires evidence from trials on a variety of different types of webpages. I can imagine if you are browsing visual items like clothing, art, memes, etc the scrolling flow is great. However when reading long documents or forums it may be the opposite.