> As sort of a sidenote: websites about UX seem to have the worst UX. Clicking the link, I'm not only met by a social sharing bar that uses 1/6th of the screen
This comment anecdotally reinforces my impression that UX people today (I assume you're either a UX people, or a people interested in UX) have a bias for full-width sites and browsers.
I rarely run my browser full-width (and I think many UX/UI designers rarely do anything else but full-width).
When I opened the page under discussion, I didn't see any social sharing bar at all, just editorial content. And when I read your comment I went "huh?" And then "oh."
So I full-widthed my browser, and saw what you're complaining about. (I didn't notice any scrolling problems. And I didn't notice a popup; that may be because of my adblocking addons.)
As far as I'm concerned, this site exhibits very good UX for this particular aspect of the site. If the browser isn't wide enough to display the sidebar, it gets moved to below the editorial content. That's so refreshingly respectful!
Most often I see "beautiful" sites that have to be sidescrolled if the browser isn't full-width. I do two things in that situation:
1. I turn off styles, which then makes everything flow within the viewport (It's 1990 again!) and moves all the blocks to the order that they appear in the html. Because all I care about are words and pictures, not features. Again, in this site's case that works fabulously, because the site makers ordered their blocks so that editorial content is first; abcnews.com is a good example where, if you turn off styles, the content of interest doesn't appear until you scroll way down the page.
Good UX, in my book, would be omitting the information in the sidebar altogether, because it somehow manages to be less relevant to the content than the pointless stock photos that illustrate it. I don't care that the article was shared 59 times, and the fact that I can share it on social networks is not mind blowing enough to me that I have to be reminded of it by a bar popping in and out of view like a mole throughout the whole article. Neither are the cool icons or Tom's helpful tone. What would I even need your help with, Tom?
It's also important to note that the bar of social network icons are not below the editorial content shere they would dwell on any remotely useful website, but on top of it. The design feels almost contemptful of its audience. My experience as a user is that I am disrespected and hated.
> This comment anecdotally reinforces my impression that UX people today (I assume you're either a UX people, or a people interested in UX) have a bias for full-width sites and browsers.
I used it on a cell phone. My choices there are limited to landscape or portrait mode, both of which behave awfully in subtly different ways. They obviously went out of their way to make a mobile version of the layout, though. They just didn't think it through, because they suck at UX.
And yes, since I am a user, I am interested in my experience. I can't say that I have a bias for full-width sites and browsers, but even if I did, why should my experience be worse in full screen than in a smaller window? Why should it be worse on a phone? The content is text. You read it from left to right, from the top to the bottom. Laying it out in a way that doesn't inspire self harm is not rocket science. Despite these vapid UX blogs making their snake oil salesmanship out to be valuable and insightful, they've failed to find a solution for the most basic problem. They can't even lay text out without having useless crap hovering over it. It's like calling yourself a plumber when you can't even flush your toilet.
Frankly, I'd rather side scroll, because at least then I'd have to make a conscious effort to see all the non-content.
No, not at all. If he doesn't like it, then he doesn't like it, I can't disagree with that at all.
My point is that the page builders consciously thought of this part, and came up with a reasonable and accommodating design, which I (a narrow-width user) only noticed because of the comment.
This comment anecdotally reinforces my impression that UX people today (I assume you're either a UX people, or a people interested in UX) have a bias for full-width sites and browsers.
I rarely run my browser full-width (and I think many UX/UI designers rarely do anything else but full-width).
When I opened the page under discussion, I didn't see any social sharing bar at all, just editorial content. And when I read your comment I went "huh?" And then "oh."
So I full-widthed my browser, and saw what you're complaining about. (I didn't notice any scrolling problems. And I didn't notice a popup; that may be because of my adblocking addons.)
As far as I'm concerned, this site exhibits very good UX for this particular aspect of the site. If the browser isn't wide enough to display the sidebar, it gets moved to below the editorial content. That's so refreshingly respectful!
Most often I see "beautiful" sites that have to be sidescrolled if the browser isn't full-width. I do two things in that situation:
1. I turn off styles, which then makes everything flow within the viewport (It's 1990 again!) and moves all the blocks to the order that they appear in the html. Because all I care about are words and pictures, not features. Again, in this site's case that works fabulously, because the site makers ordered their blocks so that editorial content is first; abcnews.com is a good example where, if you turn off styles, the content of interest doesn't appear until you scroll way down the page.
2. Or I leave.