Pagination getting a bad rap Apr29 '07

I noticed a comment from Joe Clark on Pain in the Tech, which mentions a "touchy" issue on the web these days: pagination:

Is there a reason, apart from an intent to annoy readers and artificially inflate page views, why this posting is broken into multiple sections? Hint: The Web is made of continuous pages, not leaves one must turn.

First of all, Joe Clark is a very influential name in the web industry, so I was happy to see his comment on a site that I am a contributing author. This means, perhaps, that Pain in the Tech is being taken seriously by the right group of web professionals, which will only help our exposure and growth in the future.

Joe has written for many web professional online publications, including A List Apart, and has written his own book titled Building Accessible Websites.

The context of his comment, however impatiently written, has validity and should be taken seriously.

Pagination's bad rap

Pagination, however harmless it may seem, is getting a bad rap these days, as certain web professionals have recently begun shedding light on it's drawbacks and possible malicious intents.

Mike Davidson is one individual who recently wrote a blog entry titled Pagination and Page-View Juicing are Evil, where he discusses the difference between breaking up an article for readability, or simply to boost site stats. He seems to believe that the majority of site authors are doing the latter - attempting to boost page views and ad clicks, by breaking up articles into separate pages.

Instead, what I’m seeing more and more of is ridiculous pagination for the sake of juicing page views.

Even the site authors who aren't trying to boost their own advantage, and are wholeheartedly concerned for the readers accessibility, are still getting in trouble simply because they are in the wrong spot, at the wrong time. Much like when terrorism struck America, people starting viewing certain individuals with a leery eye, even though they had nothing to do with it. It's called "guilty by association," and that's exactly what site authors that include pagination are starting to experience.

Site authors that include pagination can do one of two things:

1. Leave their site's pagination intact, and ignore the accusatory comments directed towards them.
2. Follow the latest trend, which means removing aspects of pagination, unless it's absolutely needed.

The argument against pagination is a valid one, and I agree with it. Although, rather than coming out and accusing site authors of malicious intentions, I think it's better if "pagination-less design" becomes a "best practice," or learning experience. You won't change much by accusing people of bad actions, and starting a "holy war." Rather, guide them in the right direction without being overly arrogant or rude. Teach them the way they are supposed to do it, and they will learn.

I'm certain that most site authors that include pagination are completely unaware of the drawbacks of it. Only a small few are actually taking advantage of their readers, which is wrong.

The reasons

For the record, the reasons that malicious site authors include pagination are as follows:

• Each "page" is another hit.
• Each "page" is another set of advertisements.

And the reasons why genuine site authors include pagination:

• To aid in readability, by not forcing the reader to scroll down endlessly.
• Articles are easier to absorb in "chunks."

Despite how innocent they may seem, both of these "genuine" reasons are no longer valid, because as Mike says in the link above, scrolling is not that hard, and I agree with that.

Categories: Accessibility , Web Development

Add Feedback (view all)