Re^5: Too much NON-front-paging!

The interesting thing with any form of research is that you can argue against it. For example if you look at scroll length you can find sites that say long is OK and yet they say it in under 2 screens ;-) Personally LaTeX one screen pages with endless next/up/down/home/yada buttons annoy me too.

So what do I like? I do like pages 200 screens long (probably for the same reasons as you do) provided they have 2 things. An index at the top, and a [Top] button to get back to that index. That's about it. Just the usual. Gimmee what I want now. And don't make me scroll for it. Whadayareckon?

What I don't like is hitting a 100 screen page that you have to use Find on to find whatever bit of text you entered in the search engine.....

Comment on Re^5: Too much NON-front-paging! Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Too much NON-front-paging! (intra-FP navigation) by tye (Sage) on Sep 24, 2004 at 17:44 UTC
[ I'll leave my epiphany in its original position so you can see how I probably didn't get your point at first. ] I'm not against navigation links on the front page, but I don't see much use for them. It isn't like we can have navigation links for "skip (to) the regex question(s)". Sure, you could jump to the next section (that's a great idea), but that has little to do with this thread (on how big the SoPW section should be). We could have links to skip to the next question, but most questions on the front page should be on the order of one or two screens full so that seems like such would be of limitted usefulness (but still useful). My browser as a "Home" key so I never use "Top" links (I'm not against having them, though). When I view the front page, I'm probably interested in the nodes from several sections or at least the nodes from SoPW so I scroll across the nodes one-at-a-time (maybe reading it, maybe skimming it, maybe quickly deciding to skip it, maybe clicking it to see more). What I don't like is hitting a 100 screen page that you have to use Find on to find whatever bit of text you entered in the search engine..... We should definately add a "jump to word I was searching for" navigation link on the front page. q-: Oh! Wait! You want the first half of NN at the top (a list of mostly just the node titles) with links to scroll down to see the node contents. Or the NN index first, then each section have an index of node titles followed by each node. That's a great idea! Why didn't you say so? (: - tye	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: Too much NON-front-paging! (intra-FP navigation)
by tye (Sage) on Sep 24, 2004 at 17:44 UTC

[ I'll leave my epiphany in its original position so you can see how I probably didn't get your point at first. ]

I'm not against navigation links on the front page, but I don't see much use for them. It isn't like we can have navigation links for "skip (to) the regex question(s)". Sure, you could jump to the next section (that's a great idea), but that has little to do with this thread (on how big the SoPW section should be). We could have links to skip to the next question, but most questions on the front page should be on the order of one or two screens full so that seems like such would be of limitted usefulness (but still useful).

My browser as a "Home" key so I never use "Top" links (I'm not against having them, though).

When I view the front page, I'm probably interested in the nodes from several sections or at least the nodes from SoPW so I scroll across the nodes one-at-a-time (maybe reading it, maybe skimming it, maybe quickly deciding to skip it, maybe clicking it to see more).

What I don't like is hitting a 100 screen page that you have to use Find on to find whatever bit of text you entered in the search engine.....

We should definately add a "jump to word I was searching for" navigation link on the front page. q-:

Oh! Wait! You want the first half of NN at the top (a list of mostly just the node titles) with links to scroll down to see the node contents. Or the NN index first, then each section have an index of node titles followed by each node.

That's a great idea! Why didn't you say so? (:

- tye

[reply]