Why is website design so awful today, generally?

[Tozovac]

Instead of nitpicking and finger pointing these past two months, you could have made a significant contribution to the web by starting to learn how to make websites more accessible/legible and nicer to look at.

I already did, see post number 63. I didn't need to invent anything new, we just need to return back to a time where designers didn't overthink and try to invent new solutions to issues that didn't exist.
[doublepost=1504264104][/doublepost]While we're at it, I challenge anyone go to the dropbox.com site and give three good reasons why it's advantageous to look like it's as if a VGA cable is partially disconnected and giving that hazy, incomplete, partially filled-in appearance.

 

[olup]

I already did, see post number 63. I didn't need to invent anything new, we just need to return back to a time where designers didn't overthink and try to invent new solutions to issues that didn't exist.
[doublepost=1504264104][/doublepost]While we're at it, I challenge anyone go to the dropbox.com site and give three good reasons why it's advantageous to look like it's as if a VGA cable is partially disconnected and giving that hazy, incomplete, partially filled-in appearance.

Maybe you should ask that the design team at Dropbox, they'll be able to give you the best answer.

https://twitter.com/DropboxDesign

 

[Tozovac]

Maybe you should ask that the design team at Dropbox, they'll be able to give you the best answer.

https://twitter.com/DropboxDesign

Ha, I agree that's an option, as well as mentioning it directly to companies via email feedback or at the bottom of an article in the comments section. I've often politely sent feedback/comments like that, particularly to sites after a dumbed-down and unnecessary redesign that I find to be particularly atrocious, each and every time resulting in a generic response thanking me and politely expressing how my comments will be sincerely put into consideration, etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah, pat on the head, pat on the head, pat on the head.

I don't use twitter but maybe I'll join just to do this and will share here any response I get.

 

[dacreativeguy]

can anyone answer why websites today tend to have so much wasted space, large text, large photos, and seemingly no organization to steer the user? Take for instance:

https://www.mvmtwatches.com/?utm_content=not_purchased&gclid=CJ2oq-K739QCFV2HswodErYIJw

You have to scroll forever to see everything, and by the time you get to the bottom you've forgotten what existed up on top. Used to be that only websites for things like "how to meet girls," "how to lose weight," "how to spy on your neighbor," etc. consisted of one big seemingly never-ending page that required you to scroll "forever." Now even your bank's website "treats" you to a useless hero image (or video) or two or four you have to spend time moving past to get the useful stuff which is now typically large but whispy-thin low-contrast light-blue or grey color text on white backgrounds, often with no borders or gridlines and pretty much always displaying only 50-75% on the screen as what used to be shown, requiring too much additional scrolling than before.

Where did this come from? Was it from trying to make a website work for both desktop and mobile devices (where you tryi to please everybody but wind up pleasing nobody), so you just try to list everything on one of you, with large photos and wasted space, to seemingly be optimized for an iPhone or iPad but then shaft the desktop user?

Why the lack of gridlines/borders and why all the wasted empty white space at an extreme loss of organization and efficient use?

There's been a definite shift in website design from just a few years ago. Where did this come from?

That is actually a well designed site. I got to men's watches in one click.

 

[fig]

That is actually a well designed site. I got to men's watches in one click.

Shh, stop with your logic.

On a lot of these I really don't understand what it is people are trying to find that they feel is so hard to get to.

 

[olup]

Can we please let this thread die, no point in discussing anything really, as was already mentioned.

 

[Tozovac]

Shh, stop with your logic.

On a lot of these I really don't understand what it is people are trying to find that they feel is so hard to get to.

Once again, and rather than stick to using any one website as an example, a main question is: why is it necessarily better in general beyond commercial sites seeking to funnel a user (especially: for the desktop/laptop users) most easily to the purchase button to be treated to mobile-centric over-simplified large-text white-space blue-font flat-design minimalism vs. how things used to be back when intuitiveness was prioritized as well as efficient platform-centric layouts, to put it succinctly. I.e., why has it been so much better to deviate from virtually every single item listed in the post at the link directly below other than to say "it's different at least now than before, it's something new to look at, it's freed us from all those intuitive guides that a user just doesn't need anymore."

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-today-generally.2053819/page-3#post-24862377

I've heard all kinds of financial justifications for commerce/commercial sites, to make it quicker for a shopper to buy something. What about sites that aren't driven to pull money from a user's wallet? What about sites for which the customer's already bought the product and is now using the product, like access to a website like dropbox or paypal, but he's subject to a rather unintuitive, flat, monochromatic, button-less flat designed site that can be argued day-long is often less efficient to use due to its reduced intuitiveness and space-wasting layouts. Outside of cost considerations to update two individual moble- and desktop- centric sites, and a desire to do what it takes to supposedly get the consumer to buy something quickly," I've yet to hear a justification for how those designs are better than how things used to be.

As far as forcing mobile-centric websites to a desk/laptop use: There is metal silverware vs. plastic utensils, winter tires vs. all-season tires, brown belts vs. black belts...not everything should be simplified down to one just because you can or it's cheaper.

Can we please let this thread die, no point in discussing anything really, as was already mentioned.

Rather than trying to quiet those who you disagree with, a better idea might be if you just moved on and let the rest of us with other preferences and different goals in mind than yours work.

 

[fig]

Once again, and rather than stick to using one website as an example, a main question is: why is it necessarily better for users (maybe: for the desktop/laptop users) to be subjected to such mobile-centric over-simplified large-text white-space blue-font flat-design minimalism vs. how things used to be, which included more intuitiveness and efficient platform-centric layout, to put it succinctly. I.e., the items in this post:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-today-generally.2053819/page-3#post-24862377

I've heard all kinds of financial justifications for commerce/commercial sites. What about sites that aren't driven to pull money from a user's wallet? What about sites for which the customer's already bought the product and is now subject to a rather unintuitive, flat, monochromatic, button-less flat designed site that can be argued day-long is often less efficient to use due to its reduced intuitiveness and space-wasting layout. Outside of "cost to update and desire to get the consumer to buy something quickly," I've yet to hear a justification for how those designs are better than how things used to be.

Other than cost and sales being primary drivers behind most business decisions, the fact that more traffic now is on mobile than desktop, which has been mentioned many times. Multinational corporations are sales driven and have to build sites in a standardized modular to accommodate dozens of divisions, languages, etc., there's a reason they're standardized and often not that exciting. There's lots of interesting work being done by smaller companies, as has also been mentioned. And "wasted space" is generally for readability.

Things like the Apple site changed far less than you seem to think they did, looking at 2007 vs 2012 vs 2014.
http://static1.businessinsider.com/...7-apple-updated-its-search-bar-once-again.jpg
http://static5.businessinsider.com/...-apologizes-for-its-poor-maps-application.jpg
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/540647986bb3f7385185e142-1200/heres-how-it-looks-today.jpg

My comment was actually referring more to comments about things being hard to find, too much scrolling, etc., and I never really heard any rationale as to why clicking one of the four main links that first comes up on those pages is difficult.

It is what it is, however, you have your view and I have mine and that's not changing, so I'm happy to let it go. Enjoy.

 

[Tozovac]

Other than cost and sales being primary drivers behind most business decisions, the fact that more traffic now is on mobile than desktop, which has been mentioned many times. Multinational corporations are sales driven and have to build sites in a standardized modular to accommodate dozens of divisions, languages, etc., there's a reason they're standardized and often not that exciting. There's lots of interesting work being done by smaller companies, as has also been mentioned. And "wasted space" is generally for readability.

Thx for the response. There are several angles to my complaints though beyond focusing on mobile users - yes, prioritizing a mobile-optimized interface for cost reasons and the oft-resulting agonizing-for-me-experience when using it on 20" monitor is one aspect of what I term "awful web design of today." But bigger picture: there are sites like dropbox & paypal (and others if I searched) who dumbed/flattened-down their desktop-centric sites into a lightly-shaded/colored nearly monochromatic interface that's just plan less enjoyable (to me) to use. At the center of it all is some common theme of sticking to light blues on white, or very light grey text on white for some unknown reason and non-obvious benefit. I have yet to hear why that's so much better than say, a site like Amazon which even when catering to some of the flat-design fad, still produces an engaging & useful site that I enjoy using.

Even with a "valid" business case of prioritizing a mobile layout, the average flat/white/pastel-like/low-contrast website of today is to me much less intuitive and enjoyable than those of just 4-5 years ago. Or google's material design, which has worked its way from mobile devices to general websites and which I find to be wildly unintuitive and cumbersome to use due to its unnecessary simplicity compared to the more direct and intuitive UI of Apple before iOS 7 that "the world" seemed to all copy. Just like many of today's automobile front fascias/grilles that are often over-designed ghastly garish caricatures compared to grilles of say 10 years ago all look alike, today's websites are too look-alike and too over-thought-out unnecessarybreinvenrions imho, even ones formatted for desktop/laptop use. If someone can tell me why dropbox's dull bluish/white flat design pastel-like presentation is so much better than the typical site of 5 years ago, I'll go away. It's as if there was an all out war on uniqueness, artistry, and intuitiveness. Sommy argument goes beyond just complaining about mobile appearances on desktop sites.

I'll acknowledge that there are many out there and in this discussion who fail to see what I'm arguing and think things are just fine now as they were before. For them I say-Why can't things revert to how they were before and be well-designed to my standards so then we all would be happy.

 

[olup]

If someone can tell me why dropbox's dull bluish/white flat design pastel-like presentation is so much better than the typical site of 5 years ago, I'll go away. It's as if there was an all out war on uniqueness, artistry, and intuitiveness. Sommy argument goes beyond just complaining about mobile appearances on desktop sites.

I'll acknowledge that there are many out there and in this discussion who fail to see what I'm arguing and think things are just fine now as they were before. For them I say-Why can't things revert to how they were before and be well-designed to my standards so then we all would be happy.

Because blue is part of Dropbox's CI. Flat design is a trend that'll go away as skeumorphism has been that was eventually out of fashion. Trends come and go. One of the reasons flat design became a trend is because flat UI consumes fewer resources on mobile devices and today's traffic comes mostly from mobile devices that have limited battery life/WIFI/3G/4G connectivity and weaker GPUs than a laptop or desktop.

Ever get in touch with the folks at the Dropbox design team?
Seriously though, let's all move on because there's wrong/right in this discussion and we all keep repeating ourselves here.

 

[Tozovac]

Because blue is part of Dropbox's CI.

Thanks but that's not a valid answer for why it was a good UI reason for so many chose to go the blue/white route ad nauseam. My employer ditched a perfectly-fine-working microsoft messenger for Skype which is....blue and light blue and medium blue all over, with white too. Only possible valid reason is that the lemmings followed Apple which followed Microsoft.

Flat design is a trend that'll go away as skeumorphism has been that was eventually out of fashion. Trends come and go. One of the reasons flat design became a trend is because flat UI consumes fewer resources on mobile devices and today's traffic comes mostly from mobile devices that have limited battery life/WIFI/3G/4G connectivity and weaker GPUs than a laptop or desktop.

Trend/Fad, yes I agree. Awful fad.

Using resource consumption as a valid reason for flat design? Weaker GPU's? Nah, not buying it, respectfully.

Not only have GPU's gotten way faster/efficient than those back in the days of iOS6 & before, but dumbing down the UI for the sake of battery life is wagging the dog. "Good design" concerned a truly good user experience would keep doing what worked and instead stop this thin-thin-thinner fashion-first madness that obviously affects battery capacity. Same thought about blurring the background - how efficient is that for battery life than just dimming the background like before, which also at least left it readable if you needed to look what was behind what your main window/screen.

Speaking of doing something for sake of battery consumption -- something I've always wondered about was whether the current white screen silliness used more, less, or the same battery power as darker/black screens of iOS6 & prior. Can't possibly be that ios7+'s all-white screens use the same or less power as the darker themes of iOS6 & prior, but I could be wrong.

Ever get in touch with the folks at the Dropbox design team?
Seriously though, let's all move on because there's wrong/right in this discussion and we all keep repeating ourselves here.

You can freely move on. I'll keep kicking up dust hoping to affect change and bring back good design 1 day sooner than had I not started this thread.

Never heard back from dropbox. Never received the "thank you for your interest & concern, we'll certainly pass your email on to our design team"....and then onto the virtual shredder.

 

[olup]

Thanks but that's not a valid answer for why it was a good UI reason for so many chose to go the blue/white route ad nauseam. My employer ditched a perfectly-fine-working microsoft messenger for Skype which is....blue and light blue and medium blue all over, with white too. Only possible valid reason is that the lemmings followed Apple which followed Microsoft.



Trend/Fad, yes I agree. Awful fad.

Using resource consumption as a valid reason for flat design? Weaker GPU's? Nah, not buying it, respectfully.

Not only have GPU's gotten way faster/efficient than those back in the days of iOS6 & before, but dumbing down the UI for the sake of battery life is wagging the dog. "Good design" concerned a truly good user experience would keep doing what worked and instead stop this thin-thin-thinner fashion-first madness that obviously affects battery capacity. Same thought about blurring the background - how efficient is that for battery life than just dimming the background like before, which also at least left it readable if you needed to look what was behind what your main window/screen.

Speaking of doing something for sake of battery consumption -- something I've always wondered about was whether the current white screen silliness used more, less, or the same battery power as darker/black screens of iOS6 & prior. Can't possibly be that ios7+'s all-white screens use the same or less power as the darker themes of iOS6 & prior, but I could be wrong.



You can freely move on. I'll keep kicking up dust hoping to affect change and bring back good design 1 day sooner than had I not started this thread.

Never heard back from dropbox. Never received the "thank you for your interest & concern, we'll certainly pass your email on to our design team"....and then onto the virtual shredder.

Hoping to affect change by ranting on a public forum?
Anyways, have fun

 

[Tozovac]

Hoping to affect change by ranting on a public forum?
Anyways, have fun

Absolutely! It's gotten your attention, hasn't it? A revolution has to start somewhere so it's good to keep a discussion going. Plus it makes me feel better.

Others have posted here also agreeing with me, so it gives me hope that we'll move past current fads that I personally detest. See posts like #70 by @040 that highlighted some well thought-out commentary.

Part of it is my personality too. I like to teach people and better their situation. So I have a heightened awareness when a UI or device is so poorly designed that it results in frequent questions or frustrations; even if its one small half-second frustration every minute or having to hunt & click twice every time for some action that used to require only one obvious click, then it really starts to get on my nerves. Moving from a Palm Treo to an Iphone 4 was like learning to walk, swim, and ride a bike for the first time all in one day, and the effortless/magic continued for several years...until iOS7. Ever since the fall of 2013 using my iPhone has resulted in several functional frustrations daily that never occurred before, and then as the design lemmings world does, the worst of iOS7 started finding its way into not only websites but things like starbucks menus (now white with light-colored font), Welch's grape juice bottles (labels now looking a draft/unfinished white background with no bold framed-in logo/artwork), and my local cable provider's DVD/control panel page which morphed over to a mashup of Apple TV and Google Material Design that's much harder to navigate before even if it "looks" up to date with everyone else who's trying to look up to date, and of course with more clicks/movements required than before. I have big fingers, so the iPhone's dialing screen with small circular buttons are completely covered by my fingerprints, so it's not quickly clear that I pressed the button successfully unless I look up to the screen. All for the sake of some hokey unnecessary circle-theme. The iPhone's calendar is a frameless/borderless array of light colored text on a white background that's impossible to read outdoors. Why? Why is that better? Things like that morph onto websites (as repeated 100 times above) because customers & designers unable to know what's good instead focus on keeping up with the Joneses, and although it's different, it's too often just often not good. How can so many people in positions to improve this not recognize this?

It's good to see others reading this thread who feel similar to the my sentiment, including some educated bloggers or designers. I appreciate and enjoy reading others posts here with thoughts similar to mine!

Happy iOS/OS/website days will hopefully return. TGIF, call your mother today, donate to the hurricane relief somehow, and do something un-Jony Ive-like that makes the world better instead of catering to your own personal whims.

 

[fig]

One last note because it keeps getting repeated, you keep coming back to Paypal and Dropbox. I feel like the Paypal site in particular is poorly designed and Dropbox isn't much better, but it's not because of the colors and "flat" layout. Paypal's site doesn't seem well thought out, it's hard to find what you're looking for, things aren't logically organized, and in general it's not that intuitive. No one is saying "look how great this site is".

At the same time, it feels like you're trying to pin the design failings of the site on the color palette and responsive layout, which just isn't the case. You dislike a certain aesthetic that has little to little to do with the major issues of the website.

Also worth noting that blue has also been a safe, corporate color for years. Orange was the new blue for a bit, now blue is the new blue again.

Ok, really done now

 

[theluggage]

At the same time, it feels like you're trying to pin the design failings of the site on the color palette and responsive layout, which just isn't the case. You dislike a certain aesthetic that has little to little to do with the major issues of the website.

True - but then even in this thread you see "because mobile/responsive design" being used to rebut criticism of bad designs.

...I think the flipside of that is true as well: part of the backlash against skeuomorphic designs was due to just plain bad design which missed the point of skeuomorphism. Case in point - the state that the iOS "Contacts" app got in to: but the real problem wasn't the faux leather binding - it was the fact that it had been made to look like a physical address book but it didn't behave like one. Skeuomorphism is meant to give you hints about how the interface works - not provide distractions.

The other issue, particularly with websites, is to decide what the role is going to be: on paper, you don't design an advertising hoarding the same way as a newspaper, a mail-order catalogue, an instruction manual or a scientific paper. Each has a different audience with different requirements and expectations.

I think a general criticism of "modern" website designs is that they're predominantly designed like advertising hoardings, as if they have 10 seconds to imprint the brand image and mission statement on your subconscious before you drive on. That can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the user has already gone to the trouble of clicking on a link or typing a URL you've probably got their attention and need to start feeding them some more solid information.

Of course, if you're a unicorn start up, then feeding people solid information is the last thing you want to do... Or, if you have to get the design past the type of management who doesn't actually know or care about the details (and is terrified of having their ignorance exposed) but do know how much they paid the corporate image consultants, then the less hard information up-front the better...

 

[Tozovac]

One last note because it keeps getting repeated, you keep coming back to Paypal and Dropbox. I feel like the Paypal site in particular is poorly designed and Dropbox isn't much better, but it's not because of the colors and "flat" layout. Paypal's site doesn't seem well thought out, it's hard to find what you're looking for, things aren't logically organized, and in general it's not that intuitive. No one is saying "look how great this site is".

At the same time, it feels like you're trying to pin the design failings of the site on the color palette and responsive layout, which just isn't the case. You dislike a certain aesthetic that has little to little to do with the major issues of the website.

Hi,

No actually, it is because of the flat design, the colors......as well as poor layouts, illogical organization, the unnecessary attempts to meld a mobile experience/iOS with a computer/desktop/laptop/OSX experience, etc. It's death by a thousand papercuts and not one or two glaring things, which -- painfully to admit -- seem not to be the result of fixing glaring issues but rather just a short-sighted need to bring out something new & different, completely failing to recognize that what's once new will later be old. Today's iOS/OS/website design are like 10th grade design exercises to see how much could be done with the least amount of pixels, as if they were an expendable resource like paper, glass, and plastic...except for everyone forgot about the users (as well as forgetting this was just an exercise).

Not to keep repeating, but it's the undoing of things itemized in this post that (to me) made a website "good."

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-today-generally.2053819/page-3#post-24862377

Also worth noting that blue has also been a safe, corporate color for years. Orange was the new blue for a bit, now blue is the new blue again.

I respectfully disagree again. I don't recall an iOS and OS and websites going for a nearly-all-orange UI across the board like how light blue, light grey, and white are so across-the-board nowadays... I first recall all this Death By Blue and White with a dagger of Flat Design when Windows 8 was dropped, which, when I first laid eyes on it, thought it was someone's meme/joke. Then iOS7's blue font on white added to the fad, followed by websites like paypal, dropbox, and a few others I should try to point out.
[doublepost=1505143018][/doublepost]

True - but then even in this thread you see "because mobile/responsive design" being used to rebut criticism of bad designs.

...I think the flipside of that is true as well: part of the backlash against skeuomorphic designs was due to just plain bad design which missed the point of skeuomorphism. Case in point - the state that the iOS "Contacts" app got in to: but the real problem wasn't the faux leather binding - it was the fact that it had been made to look like a physical address book but it didn't behave like one. Skeuomorphism is meant to give you hints about how the interface works - not provide distractions.

Agree 100%. Even I laughed at times at the iOS6 contacts and podcast apps, but those 1-2% of wonky iOS6 UI items made a meaningless dent to me since the rest looked & worked wonderfully from being rooted in basic UIx principles honed over decades. But somehow those 1-2 bad apples out of 100 were enough to anger an army of users/critics to inspire Jony Ive to seek his opportunity for a coup, and he won out. He waved his grey & white ugly stick and completely obliterated everything good & bad in a grand show of arrogance and shortsightedness. An iOS that was helpful/intuitive/symbolistic/guiding/rich/accommodating/warm/detailed/efficient was demolished to make way for an iOS (and then OSX that bled off into web design) that to me came across as basic/unintuitive/vague/unhelpful/evasive/antiseptic/cold/bland and often tedious at times from hiding functions in plain sight or behind layers of menus/symbols as well as sticking often to light grey font on a blinding white background, making a phone already difficult to use outdoors into being virtually impossible to use outdoors. Argh I'm repeating myself again.

I was drawn to start this thread since so many websites today suffer from too much homogeneity, simplicity, and this seemingly continued war against UIx cues that used to make an iOS/OSX/web experience good...almost as if it "worked by itself." Designers forget that they easily know what white cup the blue ball is under because they designed the cups & ball. I hope they feel plenty stoked seeing all the cups & balls looking simple & alike across various mobile apps & websites. Speaking for myself, I'm not looking to see the same white cups & blue ball everywhere I look; I want to enjoy the experience of using the ball as quickly and easily as possible, sometimes with a different-colored ball that looks like a sphere and not a dot, and to not work harder than before to re-access it every minute or so with two grabs instead of one.

 

[Solomani]

can anyone answer why websites today tend to have so much wasted space, large text, large photos, and seemingly no organization to steer the user?

I blame GoDaddy.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

Short answer: because it's double the work.

The good old responsive vs. adaptive debate...

Both have maximisers and sacrificers but agreed responsive wins client side because it's cheaper.

 

[entropi]

Does anyone know why grey text on white is so common on the web nowadays? What's wrong with a little contrast and readability?

 

[BrianBaughn]

Factor-in the increasing percentage of the web design budget that is being shifted to security costs.

 

[Tozovac]

As an additional example: This website absolutely sucks IMHO.

https://www.chooseenergy.com/

Takes me 5-10 minutes just to scan/read up & down & up & down to get a sense of what's available to me on that 1st page. Too much wasted space, poor organization, completely user-unfriendly unless you're ready to hunt and explore a while to find what's available.

 

[choreo]

As an additional example: This website absolutely sucks IMHO.

https://www.chooseenergy.com/

Takes me 5-10 minutes just to scan/read up & down & up & down to get a sense of what's available to me on that 1st page. Too much wasted space, poor organization, completely user-unfriendly unless you're ready to hunt and explore a while to find what's available.

Pretty bad. No reason for so many large blocks with little content. All of that info could could be communicated without all the need for scrolling. I had a client today ask me to design a page for them just like that - they have no "reason".

 

[Tozovac]

Does anyone know why grey text on white is so common on the web nowadays? What's wrong with a little contrast and readability?

One of my main critiques. Have come across some sites with amazingly awful readability because the text in a long article is so light grey on white. Some sites I just plain won't (can't) read on the computer and will read only if "reading view" is available on the ipad. Like what is said above, I'm sure many do this because others do this, and others do this because many do this. It's awful.

Pretty bad. No reason for so many large blocks with little content. All of that info could could be communicated without all the need for scrolling. I had a client today ask me to design a page for them just like that - they have no "reason".

When I looked up this page on my iPhone, at least everything falls in a "better" sequence than the disaster seen on a laptop, but I use that word lightly - even on my iPhone, there is so much wasted space and unnecessary scrolling to get a sense of what I'm looking at, that I just get frustrated and lose interest. So for those arguing that websites like this are optimized for mobile only, I'd argue that those optimizations are pretty poor themselves. Way too often.

 

[ejb190]

I work for a state government agency. I manage the website content (not design) for one Division of one Department.

We were told two years ago that mobile users topped 50% and has continued to increase since then. Our design is "adaptive" (their term, not mine) so the same design works for both based on screen size. But we still have to be careful how present things to keep the site usable on mobile.

I noticed when we rolled out this layout that the Division names were gone from the mobile layout, so we added them to the title picture. Problem solved with a little creativity.

I wanted to add multiple title photos, which the layout allows. Our Division web guy said no. It causes "infinite scrolling" for mobile users to get to the content. Fair enough. I can adjust to that.

The point is, sometimes it's not the design - it's how the content and the design works (or doesn't work) together. If you are stuck with a particular layout or look, your content might need to be flexible to make the best of it.

 

[Tozovac]

We were told two years ago that mobile users topped 50% and has continued to increase since then. Our design is "adaptive" (their term, not mine) so the same design works for both based on screen size. But we still have to be careful how present things to keep the site usable on mobile.

One thing makes me wonder...I wonder whether this list of increased mobile users could be from a rise in accessing a given site by mobile users who are or were already accessing a site via desktop or laptop anytime they needed to do any significant hunting or form-filling-out.

I.e., 100 desktop/laptop users and 20 of which surfed mobile, trending to 100 & 40, then 100 & 60, etc. over time as phones get larger and it's easier to do more online.

Anytime I do any "significant" accessing of something, I'll resort to the laptop/desktop screen after spending time doing initial research online when it may be convenient. Spending more than 5 minutes entering/reading/researching something requires a desktop/laptop for me at least.