Searching, and browsing result pages, is at the core of Digital Asset Management systems. Our current software uses pagination when presenting results, i.e. you start at \u201cpage 1\u201d and click through a set of numbered pages. That\u2019s what Google and Bing Web search, eBay, Amazon and many more are doing.<\/p>\n
\u201cInfinite scrolling\u201d is the shiny new alternative: You stay on a single result page \u2013 an inifinite stream that automatically (or sometimes, manually) loads more items as you scroll down to the bottom. See Google image search, Facebook or Twitter.<\/p>\n
Which approach are we going to use when building our simpler DAM UI<\/a>?<\/p>\n Make sure to read Anthony T\u2019s in-depth discussion Avoid the Pains of Pagination<\/a>: \u201cIt\u2019s important to have [pagination] on your site to prevent your pages from becoming too long and overwhelming. [\u2026] Users have better experiences with scrolling than clicking. The mouse wheels, touchpads and touchscreens of today make scrolling faster and easier than clicking. [\u2026] Infinite scrolling can frustrate users. When the user clicks to go back, they\u2019ll lose their place and progress in the content stream and will have to scroll from the top of the page again.\u201d<\/p>\n Tony Russell-Rose writes in Designing Search (part 6): Interacting with results<\/a>: \u201cWhile infinite scroll offers a more seamless experience (minimizing disruptive page reloads), and forms a natural expression of the fluid interactivity of smartphones and tablet displays, it does have a number of drawbacks. First, it is much harder for the user to determine precisely where they are in the result set or to navigate to a particular section. Second, it is no longer possible to bookmark an individual page of results.\u201d<\/p>\n (See also the technical details of how LinkedIn for iPad<\/a> and Discourse<\/a> implemented their infinite scrolling. I recently built a very primitive form; click \u201cWeitere Treffer anzeigen\u201d at the bottom of filmothek.bundesarchiv.de<\/a>\u2026)<\/p>\n In the long term, it\u2019s about making things simple for users. We don\u2019t really know yet what works best for them. (We\u2019ve been asked a few times to switch to infinite scrolling, but usually by techies, not \u201cend users\u201d.) My working hypothesis is that they\u2019re most likely to be familiar with Google and Amazon pagination. Also, it\u2019s not unusual to hear them refer to a page number (\u201cthat image on the second page\u201d) or see them browse through thousands of results (which doesn\u2019t work too well with infinite scrolling).<\/p>\n But in the short term, we must also make features simple to develop. Overcomplicating things keeps us from releasing our software, and from getting feedback from our customers. That\u2019s why we\u2019ll probably skip infinite scrolling for now: Pagination is a whole lot easier to implement and much less fragile and error prone.<\/p>\n What\u2019s your opinion on pagination versus infinite scrolling?<\/p>\n Update:<\/em> Hoa Loranger writes for the Nielsen Norman Group in Infinite Scrolling Is Not for Every Website<\/a>: \u201cLong, endless pages are good for time-killing activities because users are in the mindset for serendipitous exploration and discovery. [\u2026] It\u2019s much easier for people to remember that the item is on page 3 than it is to gauge where the item is positioned on an extremely long page. [\u2026] With pagination [\u2026] there is a happy sense of completion when a page is reviewed. [\u2026] The choices on smaller pages are easier to evaluate because fewer options feel less overwhelming.\u201d<\/p>\n Update:<\/em> Christian Holst, in Infinite Scrolling, Pagination Or \u201cLoad More\u201d Buttons? Usability Findings In eCommerce<\/a>, recommends the \u201cLoad More\u201d button. Interesting.<\/p>\n