I am a Crazy Person
by Michael Camilleri
I hate clutter.
I’m typing this while writing in a room that looks like a bomb hit it so allow me to be more specific.
I hate information clutter. Really hate isn’t the right word because it’s not like I get worked up about it.1 I mean hate in the sense of can’t stand it and can’t stand it in the sense of I don’t want to be around this so I’m going to leave. The way that you might not be able to stand the smell of something.
But I’m starting to think that I must be crazy because it doesn’t seem to matter how much more advanced websites get, they don’t change in this respect. HTML5 replaces Flash but it doesn’t stop pages that are three or four scrolls deep. CSS3 allows us to throw around rounded boxes with gay abandon but it doesn’t result in fewer rounded boxes.
I tend to believe in the idea that if you’re the only person that has a problem, maybe you’re the problem. So I’m thinking this must mean that I’m a crazy person. I’m writing this partly as an admission of defeat and partly as a cry into the wilderness. Are there any other crazy people out there?
For those of you for whom what I’m saying isn’t immediately making sense, allow me to illustrate with an example. I love the New York Times; it’s a great newspaper and I feel privileged that I can read it each day for nothing on its website. Yesterday, the Times launched a new look to the Opinion section of its website. (You can see it here.) John Gruber praised it as being a ‘nice layout’ and from what I’ve seen most people think it’s pretty spiffy.
I hate it.2
And I hate it because of information clutter. I hate it because I can hit the Page Down key four times before I get to the bottom of the page.
To be clear, I love long form writing and long form journalism in particular. I have created a website whose entire purpose is to allow me to read long form journalism more enjoyably. Let no man read this and think that I wish the columnists would simply use fewer words. No, what I’m getting at are long front or splash pages. Pages that welcome you upon arrival to a website or section. And which just go on forever. Like turtles, it’s content all the way down.
We’re not talking about four pages of endless scrolling that is filled with a site map or something. This is four pages of content. At the time of writing, if you hit the Page Down key four times you will make it to the bottom of the front page and you will be presented with a teaser to an article by Jeff McMahan about carnivores. This is a real article. If you click on it, you are taken to an article that is 2,789 words long.
But this is my question: who is clicking on this? Who is hitting Page Down four times, getting to the bottom and then clicking on this link?3 I can’t believe anyone is. And yet these endless front pages are pervasive. And on really, really popular websites. See Yahoo!, Amazon, MSN, YouTube, AOL.
When I go to a site like this, even when it’s a site filled with content that I like, I invariably find myself shutting it. I can’t deal with the information overload and I’d rather not look at it. This cannot be the case for most people, though. If it were, these websites would change. They’re big and successful and popular because people visit them (not because people close them).
But it just doesn’t make any sense. Gahhhh!
Take the Amazon page. I’m looking at it now and if I hit the Page Down key three times, I am presented with ‘Bounce’ fabric softener. Who the fuck clicks on this? Who looks at the first row of products, the second row, the third row — indeed six rows — and then thinks to themselves, Ah ha! Fabric softener! At last!4
According to Wikipedia, Amazon made $24.5 billion. In 2009. Last year, I did not make even one billion dollars. Clearly what they are doing is working. Which is why I’m thinking I must be crazy. I must have the problem. I must be the odd one out.
Excuse me while I sit in a corner muttering to myself.
-
Or at least not that worked up about it. I guess I did spend a good 30 minutes composing this post about it. ↩
-
This is the Internet so when I say I hate it what I mean is that while in a lot of ways I admire the craftsmanship that’s gone into its production, I have an issue with it and so must treat it with all the scorn and derision I can muster. ↩
-
Apart from me. ↩
-
I feel compelled to point out that if you did scroll down you would see that you were being offered ‘Bounce’ for 25% off. I like to think of this as a reward for people who actually click on this link. I don’t believe this is true but if it were it would almost make me not mind it. ↩
Comments
You are not making sense. Go back to school.
If it’s countable then it’s “fewer” not “less”. So “fewer words” please.
Thanks Dave :) Corrected!
Off in the distance, through the thick wild forest, you hear another cry, echoing its way in return. :P
I quite agree with what you’re saying and feel quite similarly. (and you’re making perfect sense, by the way. I have the urge to insult Rrr, but I’ll restrain myself, in fact.)
I guess what these strange people who babble on about how users have a short attention span must be true then.
How strange.
So, what’s the alternative?
Beautiful site, by the way.
@Derek Cheers :)
@John I’m not sure to be honest. I really hesitate to say these sites are wrong for the reasons I put in the post (namely that they are successful at what they do).
Perhaps not exposing it all at once? (Although one of the commenters on HN pointed out that he likes the fact they do this because it leads to easy scanning.) I’ll have to have a think.
@John Oh, and thank you for the compliment. It’s really all Jim Barraud’s theme :)
One of my favorite posts in a long time… I must be crazy too.
Since you have responded positively to the “fewer vs. less” item, I will offer one other small correction. The phrase “for free”, though unfortunately extremely popular in the advertising world, is grammatically incorrect. “For” is a preposition, therefore it should be followed by an object (the object of the preposition). An object is typically a noun, pronoun, or other noun phrase. “Free” isn’t a noun, prounoun or noun phrase. It is an adjective. Therefore, it is wrong to use “free” as the object of the preposition “for”. You are trying to describe something as being without cost. A correct phrase to use in this case would be “for nothing”. “Nothing” is a noun, so it is a valid choice as the object of a preposition.
Having said all that, it seems completely hopeless that we will ever be able to get the general population to stop using the phrase “for free”. It seems to be about on par with the incorrect usage of its/it’s and the widespread inability of folks to use “loose” when they want something to not be tight and “lose” when someone doesn’t win.
I am certain that I have typed enough words here to make some form of spelling, grammar, punctuation, word choice, or writing style mistake. I therefore welcome corrections to this post regarding a grammatical correction. :-D
I’m crazy too. I just don’t understand how could stuff that require you to put the extra effort in be successful (as in, preferred).
I guess that’s why I never rolled my own website.
You’re right: you’re a crazy person. I tend to complain about the opposite: I hate having to click the next button when they could have put it all on the same page. Page down is -much- faster than finding and clicking whatever link they’ve used to divide their content up into more advertising chunks.
Ever heard about SEO?
I had to scroll ALL THE WAY down to leave this comment.
Like, ALL. THE. WAY.
I’m the same, Michael.
Even websites by and for design professionals are cluttered. They often seem to be the result of print design inappropriately transferred to a non-print medium. In print design, you’re supposed to fill every bit of space because paper is expensive. The web has different constraints, but inappropriate design attitudes carry over.
I think for many people, cluttered sites seem impressive and professional. “Wow, look at all the content stuffed into this page. The company must be really big and successful, and they must have put a lot of work into this page.”
Dude you are so right. This is why I always use the mobile version of a site when available, even on the desktop. As for who is crazy… Google the latest crisis over Katy Perry’s boobs and Sesame Street. They embrace her music but reject her cleavage? These people have NO TASTE! p.s. I like everything about her, I have excellent taste.
@Aaron, If we’re talking about actual design, I don’t know who would ever reasonably say that about the print medium. Truth is, many web workers just don’t have a clue about the principles of design.
Couldn’t agree more. Especially wrt Amazon. I get lost there every time, and can’t understand how they sell anything.
as everyone hits page down four times to read and comment. who the fuck does that?
m3mnoch.
Amazon has an ideal front page layout for me. I rarely leave the top inch of the page, and I never have to scroll down to find it. If you put the product search, a link to my account, a link to my wish lists, a link to my cart, a link to gift card purchasing, and a link to targeted sales in the top inch, you’ve done it for me. Aim the rest of the page to the type of plebs that click on banner ads.
And if I ever get the crazy urge to window shop, all of the departments are listed at the absolute top of the left column, exactly where you would expect a top level menu to be. If I ever get the urge to be marketed to in a “personalised” manner, it’s still in my top inch in the recommendations link, and contained in a nice pleasant greeting sentence.
I’m not sure what more I could want. The part of the Amazon front page that is relevant to me is as minimal as google, if not a bit more (no stupid js fadein.)
You are crazy because you think the majority of internet users are like you in some even remote way.
Well you’re wrong.
So the big boys give them what they want. Amazon, NYT, Foxnews, et al., have used clickmaps/heatmaps, and CTR analytics for years at this point.
They know people are clicking the shit out of them, based on the way they lay out content.
I know what an Ad looks like. I know what data-mined suggested products look like. But I know where to go to get what I want. Where can I find the internet you described? The one where I can frolic in knowledge freely and gain back some sense of sanity.
It exists. It’s why Richard Stallman only accesses the internet via email that only reads plaintext. He has a bot wget the pages for text and mail it to him when he wants to see what a website looks like. He says it’s mostly for personal reasons and I have a feeling he could relate to you. He did mention security from search engines in a follow up question on that but still put the emphasis on personal reasons.
As a compromise I use ad-block and also Readability when it’s particularly annoying, or when I want to consume a longer document.
Kids! Get the hell off my lawn!
No offence Mike, but have you considered that maybe you’re not going crazy, but simply getting older?
I almost expected to hear a muttering of “Why, back in -my- day…”
I’ll certainly agree with your sentiment on information overload, but I’ll freely admit that’s because like an old(er) fogey, I simply miss the “good old days”.
Of course, old fogies tend to be viewed as crazy anyway. ;)
Hey Mike, do you actually 1) shop at Amazon 2) look stuff up at Amazon 3) log in when you do the preceding things?
Because the experience of Amazon changes dramatically when you do that. The recommendations are supremely engineered. It’s why Amazon keeps telling you to sign in to get recommendations.
I get the distinct impression that a lot of “I hate information clutter!!1!” types have never worked in a situation where they have this myriad range of content, suppliers or advertisers they need to showcase in order to actually make money. When that happens, overload can work (to a point) because the user picks out what they want anyway – just like in real life!
(This is grossly oversimplifying things, of course, but so are you g)
@Bijan Thank you :) It’s nice not to feel alone. We’ll have to start an asylum!
@APerson Corrected! :)
@Michael The other people here might be right that what makes these things successful is that they can sort of be all things to all people. Some people are going to respond really negatively but they’re (we’re) a small minority compared to the amount of people that are gaining utility from the design.
@lorn I don’t have a problem with it when it’s a contiguous piece of content (like a long form article). I agree that in that instance that the breaking of the content is frustrating. What I was trying to get at here was not that I hate long web pages but rather that I hate web pages that are filled with dozens and dozens of snippets of content.
@Aaron I’ve been thinking about your post for most of the day. I don’t have a problem with print design (especially newspaper design) and I wonder if some of it isn’t that it’s about context. When you’re viewing a piece of content in a window with a scrollbar you never know quite where you are — when it’s a physical object then unless you’ve literally got your nose to thing, you know where you are.
I’m going to think about this some more. Thanks!
@John The mobile versions of sites do tend to solve the problem and I’ve found myself doing the same thing.
@Slartibartfast I don’t get lost per se. If I just ignore everything below the fold so to speak I’m kind of OK but it is easy to get lost if you just start randomly clicking on things. I’m starting to think context is a big part of what’s going on here.
@Jamaal I guess the question is why not just have that top inch? I agree that’s where the action is for me, too (and I imagine a lot of people). Why have six rows on the front page?
@Bones It’s not that I think everyone is like me. It’s that my reaction to this is so extreme (I can’t use it) that I’m wondering if I’m as far removed from “normal people” as it appears or if everyone hates it but soldiers on because they think this is just how it has to be.
You don’t have just that top inch because that top inch doesn’t sell anything. The reason I only use that top inch is because I never go to Amazon to buy anything that I don’t already know that I want. I’m that kind of shopper. Now, since they have me completely attended to, and an infinity of page left, why not target whatever percentage of people who don’t shop like me?
I’d be different if they put that top inch at the center of or the bottom of the page. I’d be outraged. But as it is, I’m not sure that I’d ever looked at the rest of the page until I read this blog post.
The big question to me is why not sell if you can, as long as you keep all of the elements that appeal to the no-nonsense shoppers in a prominent, clear bundle?
@Muki Do you think young people don’t have this problem? I hadn’t thought about it as a function of age but you could be correct. I don’t actually think things were better in the past, though. Web design has come leaps and bounds — I just think it’s still got further to go.
@Komala Yes to 1), 2) and 3). And I do like their recommendation engine. I hate on Amazon quite a bit but I do think they do a good job in some respects. What I don’t understand is why the two are linked. Can’t they just have a kick ass recommendation system? Why do they need to have 6 rows of products on the front page?
@Michael: You’re probably right that the screen is an important issue. If computer screens were large and high-resolution, like paper, would your problem go away? Or are there other issues?
Derek correctly pointed out that many webpages are made by people who don’t understand design. Webpages are also potentially interactive — you can affect them by pushing buttons, typing, etc. — while print is static; webpages are therefore less predictable. Webpages can have animations, so they can be more visually distracting. Are any of these problematic for you?
@Jamaal The only reason you wouldn’t want to make a page all things to all people is if, in so doing, you actually alienated some of the people you wanted to be your customers. The thesis of this post is that I’m being alienated by these designs which provide all this information.
The interesting question to me is whether this is actually alienating a large number of people. It sounds like it’s probably not (which is depressing for me because it means there’s little reason for these companies not to continue doing what they’re doing).
@Aaron I’m not sure if the screen could ever be ‘big’ enough (assuming there’s not some iOS-esque page zooming going on). If I have to scroll, I think I’m always going to be at a bit of a loss in terms of context.
I’ve quickly mocked up an alternative and put something up here: http://inqk.net/weblog/2010/09/26/an-alternative-design/
Thanks for your interest :)
Wow, Mike. Don’t you understand how retail works? Or how powerful the impulse buy is, especially when you’re online?
Next time you’re at the supermarket look at all the stuff that you’re not buying. When you are impulse buying you do not realise that you want things until they are in front of you. Hence throwing stuff at you in the hope you’ll buy more stuff (it works shockingly well, even when you’re aware of it).
Mike,
I bookmark Krugman and Freakonomics so rarely go back to the main Opinion page, but having a quick squiz at it, it looked OK – they’ve clearly delineated articels with graphic elements and added a bit of white space (which probably only /increases/ your problem of distance.)
What do you think of all those Japanese websites that seem absolutely crammed to the brim with text? They disorient me badly – mostly, I think. because I don’t understand the language and therefore I don’t have any mechanism to compartmentalise the stuff being presented to me (e.g. I can’t parse long strings of characters as sentences). Wonder how Rui feels about this?
@Komala Yep, I’ve worked in supermarkets and retail and I understand how impulse purchases work.
I suppose the point I’m trying to make is that I don’t think the impulse buy works when (in my case) when there’s information overload. I might be tempted by an impulse purchase when I’m on a product page or at the checkout screen. But to be offering something to me on the sixth row on the front page (when I’m not logged in and not able to purchase) seems like overkill.
I believe it probably works, though (given that Amazon would change it if it didn’t). That was kind of the point of the post. These strategies don’t just actively not work but actually make me no longer visit a page. Impulse buys at the supermarket are fine but if customers don’t come in because they don’t like being pestered with offers you might have a problem. Unless the customers that don’t come in are crazy.
@Chris I think for a long time Japanese web design has been breathtakingly awful. My personal theory is that the primary way that most Japanese access the Internet is through their phones and so the most important thing was your mobile site. I went to a couple the other day, though, and they’re lightyears better than they used to be.
Rui has a similar aversion to clutter (or ‘busyness’) on a page but I think that’s a personal thing as well. Having said that, she is able to, and does, read the SMH website which is a step ahead of me.