Agreed. Not to put to fine a point on it, but if your user is on iOS or OS X, they are accustomed to losing sight of their progress because, as the article says, "Apple knows best."
Going out of your way as a content author to correct for the user interface quirks of the reader's preferred reading environment seems extraordinary and unnecessary.
Presumably a non-trivial number of iOS and OS X users actually like the fact that scrollbars are hidden from view while reading and it may have been a factor (a small one, admittedly) in their decision process.
"Going out of your way as a content author to correct for the user interface quirks of the reader's preferred reading environment seems extraordinary and unnecessary."
I would actually say that it's outright user hostile to do this sort of garbage.
It's my preferred reading environment, but I hate that apple made this decision, because, as my sibling commenter here noted, it's outright user hostile. Apple never really totally understood the "visibility" requirement of usable interfaces. They like to hide things to make them look pretty, and it only leads to better advertising, not better interfaces.
Thankfully there's still a setting to always show scrollbars. For now.
The scrolling interface is always visible. It's just on the input device instead of the screen.
Originally, the scroll bar itself was the interface. You scrolled by clicking the little arrows, or by grabbing the scroll thumb and dragging. But when scroll wheels were introduced, the scroll bar became less necessary. And with the advent of trackpad magic/mouse scrolling, which support both horizontal and vertical scrolling, the scroll-bar-as-interface becomes ridiculous.
(Note that the default OS X behavior is not "hide scroll bars," but "hide scroll bars if your mouse or trackpad supports scrolling.")
That said, while there's no longer much need to interact with scroll bars, there's still a need to indicate that scrolling is possible, and possibly your position in the document. But surely we can convey that in fewer than the ten thousand pixels that a scroll bar consumes?
> But when scroll wheels were introduced, the scroll bar became less necessary.
This isn't true; scroll wheels are more convenient than using the scroll bar for progressing through a document sequentially, but there's no facility for absolute positioning using a scroll wheel. You can't move to a specific point on the page with the wheel, and can only move in one direction or the other at a speed limited by how fast you can physically spin the wheel on the mouse.
Probably the best alternative to a scrollbar for absolute positioning that I've ever seen is the "document map" feature of some text editors, which provides a vertical thumbnail of the entire document in a column that works similarly to the way a mini-map in a game works: you see the layout of the document, zoomed out, and can click on exactly where you want to go.
Tell that to my mom. The only way she scrolls is to use the scroll bar itself as the interface, clicking the buttons. I try over and over again to convince her the scroll wheel is faster, and show her. She hates it, she strongly prefers the old way. She is old school. She can't get used to the scroll wheel. I'm not sure why. I'm not sure if it is just muscle memory or what.
So far I only met trackpad magic/mouse scrolling on a mac or laptop. That leaves a lot of desktop computers out.
I am typing this on a iMac 2006 and even if the mouse has a wheel I still grab the bar because it's more precise (it allows to put the text where I want) than scrolling (which just increments height offset by a proportional fixed value).
When my mouse died, I got a magic trackpad instead. It's much more precise than using a mouse, you don't need to keep hunting the scroll bar everytime you scroll, and with all the gestures I don't even miss the mouse anymore. With a little practice I'm even able to do Photoshop work from the trackpad.
For the most part I agree, I like what OSX does. However, there are edge cases which are infuriating. Have you tried to scroll through an HTML <select multiple> in Chrome on OSX? The only word I can use to describe the experience is 'rage'.
Right, but that's largely the fault of the browser, not the OS or the concept. Knowing that it's not the smartest choice for a webdesigner, but it's essentially equivalent to a bunch of checkboxes with labels.
What is user hostile is some application developer contravening the platform's UI conventions without a very, very good reason. "Because I want everything to work the same across platforms" is not nearly sufficient. I dislike this very, very much and I go out of my way to avoid using software that does this. This problem is particularly awful on the web, and this is a big part of the reason I avoid web applications wherever possible.
I actually agree with you--I prefer for the scrollbar to remain visible. In my preferred reading environment, a Windows PC running Firefox, it does remain visible. I like clean design, but not at the expense of function. I am firmly of the opinion that too much functionality has been sacrificed from modern user interfaces at the altar of simplicity.
I'm nevertheless of the point of view that the content author should not fuss with these specific particulars, leaving them instead to the discretion of the designers of the reading environment itself. The consumer of the content can then weigh the design of those elements when selecting a preferred reading environment.
In principle I agree with you. In this case apple's decision causes actual problems with content. Putting stuff in a scrollable iframe, or overflow scroll pane now involves carefully instructing people on how to scroll it. Or you force your own custom scrollbars. Or just not have scrollable panes-- you could argue that is a good thing, but sometimes they are unavoidable. Like, for instance, here on HN if someone happens to post an extremely long code segment.
if you are using a mac, remember that you need to scroll horizontally to read all of the above message.
on an ipad use two fingers to scroll it.
Do you get my point? Is the above a problem for HN or for Apple or for the User to puzzle out?
In Safari, there's no visual indication that the content is horizontally scrollable. That's a problem.
In Firefox, there's a big scroll bar. This scroll bar consumes more visual space than the content it scrolls. That's an absurdity.
Scrollbars are a legacy UI element, a throwback to an era before scrolling mice and trackpads. You nicely illustrated a problem, but your proposed solution makes no sense on modern computers with dedicated scrolling gestures.
> Scrollbars are a legacy UI element, a throwback to an era before scrolling mice and trackpads
I think there's disagreement about that here, which in a manner of speaking, is behind the mixed opinions expressed in this thread.
I for one do not seek a browser without a scrollbar even though my mouse has a scroll-wheel. Making very large adjustments to my scroll position using the wheel is annoying: either I spin the wheel repetitively or I click the wheel and enter a scroll mode where the pointer's distance from a start point adjusts a velocity of scroll that continues until I click again. Both are much more fussy than just picking the scrollbar tack up and dragging it to the point I want to reach.
I don't even like that in IE 10 (Metro) the scrollbar disappears on my Surface Pro with its touch screen. Luckily for me, IE 10 (desktop) retains the scrollbar.
Good points. I should revise what I wrote to touch-enabled scrolling hardware.
With a scroll wheel, both fine and gross movements are more difficult. The scroll wheel has a fixed set of positions, and is optimized for scrolling a line or two at a time. I also have never liked the modal "scroll mode" that you describe.
With a magic mouse or scrolling trackpad, you get a much larger surface area available for scrolling, and there are more gradations. Inertia scrolling also makes it easy to scroll to the bottom or top of documents quickly: you can quickly "flick" to get to the bottom or top, which feels pretty natural.
As a result, I find I interact with the scroll bar a lot less on my MacBook Air than I do on my scroll-wheel equipped desktop. I'm not sure what the situation is like on Windows though.
> I'm not sure what the situation is like on Windows though.
Us poor Windows users have to hike few miles, find the cursor, lift and carry it on the back for a mile to get it to where we want it to, and then place it there. After all that, the page moves an inch.
Scrollbars are hidden by default if OSX detects a Magic mouse/trackpad but there's nothing stopping anyone from changing that to always shown (or always hidden!), as well as the scroll direction.
Maybe the solution is a prompt for a decision the first time OSX starts up, at the same time as the user is creating their account?
add a prompt you say?
do you think anyone actually reads prompts? or do they just dismiss them as quickly as possible, since they're in the way of the actual task?
I do get your point, and it's a good one. My opinion about allowing the user the luxury of having selected their preferred reading environment isn't so inflexible to say that you shouldn't afford users some concessions in a scenario such as this.
On my PC, I of course do see a scrollbar. In fact, I probably would not at first even realize that I need to instruct viewers on other platforms to interact with the content in any unusual manner. But once aware of it, given the capability to design my content differently to avoid the situation described, I would go with that. Failing that option, I would probably just put instructions in as you've done here.
I would fairly steadfastly refuse to implement my own scrollbar functionality because I'd likely fail to implement that in a manner all users on all devices would understand intuitively.
For the majority of scenarios, the browsers' default behavior will match the users' expectations and they will be able to consume the content I've created in the fashion with which they are accustomed.
As an aside, this conversation reminds me that legacy versions of IE (and maybe current versions; I've not checked) allowed one to affect the appearance of the browser's scrollbar through CSS.
I believe it to be neither and as a counterpoint ask if it really is a problem as you frame it. Scrolling on a touch enabled device, and all Apple devices are supplied touch enabled in one way or another, is performed differently. It is instinctive using OS X to scroll with 2 fingers. Obviously, this is a learned behaviour for adults that have been around computers for a while, but an intuitive one none the less. The old paradigm of scrollbar with arrows and thumb is redundant with touch input, to the point it actually gets in the way. What we have now in OS X and iOS serves more as a page location indicator that occupies the same position in the container.
Sometimes I'd like to have control over my full page representation and width across browsers and OSes, and scrollbars styling is missing or non-uniform or unreliable.
EDIT: Scrollbars are inside viewport, meaning they're effectively part of my document, and I'd like to have a say how they look like, the same as form elements.
Ugh, no. I want every UI control to look the same, everywhere. The scrollbars are not effectively a part of your document. That's not the case for a browser, or an office app, or anything that displays scrolling content. They're a property of the container, not the document.
Funny, I just replied to TheZenPsycho and mentioned in an aside that I recall older IE versions (and possibly recent ones as well) did allow the content author to apply styles to the scrollbar with CSS. I have had mixed feelings about that but in general, I would agree with you that it should be open to styling.
I agree because I assume the scrollbar would retain its functionality. By styling it, I don't lose, for example, individual adjustment buttons at each extreme, drag to scroll, and paging by clicking the empty space on a Windows PC.
On the other hand, if I style it, I'd probably want to do so in a context-sensitive manner, applying a specific look for mouse-enabled contexts and another for touch-enabled contexts. And then I end up have to make the same decisions Apple and Microsoft have had to. :)
Not just IE; Webkit allows absurdly extensive CSS customization of the scrollbar. You can see it in action on Google+, or an overview of the features here:
I guess it comes down to personal taste. I for one like that they hide away, and I can bring them back just by holding down for two fingers on my trackpad.
Thankfully you can make scroll bars persistent in System Preferences.
The "personal taste" argument comes up a lot in usability conversations. I find it to be incredibly weak. I might personally prefer to walk blindfolded across busy roadways. But that doesn't make it broadly easy or advisable.
It's just simply a bad decision. There shouldn't be a preference, it should just be on by default, end of story. It only makes sense on iPads.
The fact that it's auto-hide by default means that most mac owners will just simply have their machines set to auto-hide the scrollbar, and very likely have no idea that a setting exists- Then blame it all on the content owners for making a bad/hard to use site. (especially if they decide they want a scrollable pane with OS specific scrollbars on it)
To expand a little bit, even something as seemingly arbitrary, like driving on the right or left side of the road, is not a matter of preference. If you pick the wrong one in a certain country, you can equally get yourself killed as with your other more obviously wrong "preferences". There is value in having everything work in a standard way.
This smacks of fascism, if I may be so blunt. It's preference as long as you do not hurt with your decisions any one else. Not turning your headlights on at night while driving on a public street is NOT a preference you can have, because it effects others. Not turning your headlights on while driving on your own exclusive and private drive way IS preference, as the only person you are likely to kill is your self. Not having any scroll bars on is preference because the only one it effects is the user.
I think a more important question is, what kind of design are you using that people can not instinctually figure out that they need to scroll? If your site needs to be scrolled horizontally (and its not painfully obvious that that's the case) it's a bad design. And if your user can not figure out that they need to scroll vertically, the are an idiot, or it's a truly bad design. In the former case, stop catering to the stupidest 5% of the population. Just like with people who use IE 7 in 2013, you'll never be able to properly serve them. And if its because of your design, redesign the damn site rather then pushing your preference onto the user.
I'm sorry, what smacks of fascism? The choice, in this case, is Apple's, inflicted on all of its customers.
If anything that is not obviously harmful can be reduced to mere "preference" then what is the point of hiring designers? just deliver raw html code and a textfield for users to write in their own css, right?
Of course, I admit this is reducing the argument to absurdity, but so is calling my position "fascism".
In truth, as product designers we make all kinds of decisions on behalf of our users. We use a system of judgement to rank the "goodness" and the "badness" of those decisions based on whether they make our user's lives easier or harder. (or make us more or less money, depending on your ethos)
In what way does hiding the scrollbar improve anyone's lives? In the cases where it demonstrably makes user's lives harder, explain why that doesn't matter?
Some people argue that Apple limits the users by not giving them enough options. You are of the opinion that Apple provides entirely too many user options. Not only should the users always have scroll bars on, but they also should not have the ability to turn them off. (correct me if I misunderstood)
what "some people" argue is irrelevant here. Who are "some people" anyway? "Apple provides entirely too many user options" is not in any way the argument I've made. My argument is that having this specific option is a mistake. If you want the generalised form of that argument, it is:
1. this, and other "preferences" are not arbitrary or meaningless. They have real consequences (even if the only real consequence is minor annoyance)
2. the presentation of too many choices is in fact, a real and well documented anti-pattern in UI-design. Too many choices is cognitive overload. Programmers like choices. programmers like power. but ordinary mortals don't care what colour their window title bars are, as long as the colour doesn't get in the way of their job.
3. Given the above, it is the UI designer's responsibility to be very opinionated about what the defaults of a system should be, and what should be configurable as a choice. (the fewer choices the better, generally, from a design perspective.)
4. as a corollary to that, I am aware that "some people" are uncomfortable about Apple's lack of configuration options. Those people are not designers, and should not ever be put in the position of designing a UI. Or you end up with a monstrosity like the desktop linux ecosystem. It's essentially an argument from ignorance of the research.
>My argument is that having this specific option is a mistake.
That's a belief. I don't see any argument here. Why is it a mistake?
Perhaps modern users, not tied to a legacy of scrollbars, could not care less about them? Perhaps 95% of users (with the exception of hackers) not even use them or notice them when they are there?
>Those people are not designers, and should not ever be put in the position of designing a UI.
Whereas you are? And we should take your opinion on scrollbars over Apple designer's one, because?
"Designers" should never be put in a position of designing a UI. Claiming the mantle of "designer" usually seems to reveal a preference for static aesthetics over functional utility.
Nearly every time I see someone talking about "design" in the realm of user interfaces, or about making software "beautiful", they're invariably attempting to use concepts applicable to media intended for the presentation of information to a viewer in the context of an interface intended to facilitate dynamic interaction between a functional tool and the user, and it always seems to make the software more limited, less productive, and more frustrating to use.
A user interface is about exposing software functionality and enabling users to maximize their efficient use of their tools. Optimizing a UI to look good in a screenshot means not optimizing the UI to provide efficient access to the functionality of the application, and not optimizing the flexibility of the application for users to adapt it to their own priorities and work styles.
This trend of attempting to exercise top-down control over user experience needs to end, and software developers need to start paying attention to what users are actually trying to do with the products they build, instead of deferring to inappropriately-applied theoretical models offered by visual designers.
Design is how it works. Not how it looks. How it looks is properly called "style".
If you have found a "Designer" who is overly concerned with how it looks and not so much how it works, the conclusion to reach is that you have found a bad designer, not that all "designers" are concerned only with aesthetics.
If "design" is meant to refer to how things work rather than how they look, then it's clear that the majority of people talking about "design" with respect to software UIs are using the term incorrectly.
People who call themselves "designers" in this context, and at the present moment, generally are prioritizing screenshot aesthetics over functional utility, and we're getting worse software because of it.
Well you're not wrong about that. The word "design" and "designer" is vastly misunderstood by everyone, including many of the people who go around calling themselves "designers". It's like the problem the programming industry has with people applying to jobs, calling themselves "programmers", and who can't code the most basic things.
Except, that in the case of the designers, since the person giving the interview also does not know what design actually entails, they get hired.
The situation has led to actual designers inventing a new title to give themselves "UX", which I predict will also quickly get watered down to mean basically nothing.
It's kind of really sad. and frustrating.
Another problem is a real designer, calling themselves a designer, gets hired by an organisation that has the wrong idea about what a designer does, and so gets pigeonholed out of any important decision making processes, and only is allowed to be involved at the very end of the process.
A very good designer can get around this, but they often don't have much power in the organisation to do anything about this pigeonholing.
See argument upstream-
in summary, autohiding scrollbars:
Pros:
Looks tidier sometimes
Cons:
Causes frustration and confusion.
My question is: whose lives have been significantly improved by the addition of this feature? why does it exist?
> Whereas you are?
yes
> And we should take your opinion on scrollbars over Apple designer's one, because?
because I am right and Apple is wrong.
On top of that, the reaction to my position is so weird. Oh Zen, if you had your way we would be FORCED by your tyrannical fascist ways to look at ugly scrollbars ALL the time instead of just some of the time. :(
yeah, designers/programmers need to learn to spine-up, and make decisions instead of just leaving everything up to the user, even if it's just better defaults, and leaving a .ini file around for the people who desperately need to change something.
I am of an opinion that one only needs a scroll bar when scrolling. On OSX the scroll bars are always visible when scrolling. You think you know better, and would like to overwrite my preference with yours. I don't think we will ever agree. I like options you like rules.
What does autohiding the scrollbars add to your life? How does it improve it? You avoid this question. You have no answer.
On the other hand, the presence of this option causes confusion and frustration, and, one could argue, significant economic harm as a result of the confusion and frustration.
Why is your preference (which you have not, and possibly cannot explain) more important than the confusion and frustration of everyone else?
I think you have a strong preference in this case, and you wish to force your preference upon people in the name of the "common good." I'll let you figure out the definition of that behavior all on your own.
Instead of arguing about your clear authoritarian tendencies, here is my main reasons why I think hiding scroll bars is a good idea:
1. Information Overload: You should only show user information when they need it. Users need to know how much of the document is remaining, or where they are currently located, when they are scrolling. If they need the data, they are but a touch away from it.
2. Scroll Bars create anxiety in users who are actually reading your website. If you are under slight time pressure, as most of us are at all times, you will concentrate on your own progress through the page, rather then engaging with the content.
3. Shifting: Even on operating systems where it is the convention to always show the scroll bar, the scroll bar still disappears when there is no scrollable content. Many, websites are centered, and they have a tendency to shift the center of the website by the width of the website when the scrollbar appears and disappears. I find that behavior annoying.
4. Shifting in text boxes: when the scroll bar appears, once you typed enough text to fill the box, the text has to reflow, in order to accommodate the new scroll bar. I find this very annoying and distracting.
Finally, you keep referring to these mythical, internally confused people who keep reading only the tops of all the news articles and constantly wonder why the rest is cut off. Can you show me the following:
1. Any site that looks confusing on a mac without scroll bars. Something I can show to people and gauge their reaction.
2. Any study, article, or survey done on the subject that states that it's a severe problem. Not personal anecdotes, but actual evidence of some kind.
it's just, that you were supposed to scroll to actually read it. There was no way you could have known, since you're on a mac.
I would like to add that your use of the word "fascist" and "authoritarian" is a grave disrespect to those who are survivors of authoritarian regimes. If I were you I would think much more carefully before throwing such words around over scrollbar preferences
and you still think a scrollbar preference is worth calling "authoritarian"? odd. Maybe the soviet union wasn't as bad as everyone says, if that is the standard to judge by.
You have an authoritarian attitude. You have a particular opinion about how scrollbars should be, and you would gladly force your opinion upon me, if you could. Now, sure, that's a trivial matter. But I have a problem with the attitude. In any case, I am glad that, at least for now, I am entitled to my opinion, and and you are to yours, and I think that's great.
actually it was Apple that forced its decision on us.
I just think they should have made a different decision.
It's like commenting on sport- I don't actually have the vast power to affect people's lives like Apple does.
And reverting to reductio ad absurdum in an attempt to prove a logically weak position is better? Your closing works both ways. Your logic as far as I can see has basically been, to paraphrase; 'it annoys me'.
All recent (less than 3 years) Apple devices are sold either as touch devices or with touch enabled peripherals. Gestural interaction is the default paradigm of interaction on iOS/OS X (this is also true of Android devices). These users are largely used to this behavior, which can be changed if there is a desire to do so. This behavior does not affect users of other systems that don't support gestural interaction. There is no need therefore to cater specifically for Apple (or other) users as they, through daily interaction with their device, will intuit what to do. It puzzles me why the scrollbar still exists as an interaction device elsewhere. I really had to think about where and how they appear because I am so used to them simply not being there.
Perhaps you are looking at them in the wrong way. Where once the scrollbar was used for scrolling, it is now used to indicate the position the reader has reached on a page.
No, I read it easily; I simply used the trackpad to scroll. I disregarded it to because the premise is flawed, as has been pointed out to you. You don't have to agree with everyone else, but in real world use, with real world people, this is considerably less of an issue that you are making it to be.
Watch a child use touch-based interface. It's enlightening. They intuit the required interaction with consummate ease. Having observed how individuals still use scroll bars by tapping on the arrows and not realising that it's quicker to grab the bar, to me illustrates that using and relying on scroll bars is as much a learned behaviour, and a less intuitive one at that.
I can't count the number of times my coworkers have said something along the lines of, "What are you talking about? I never saw anything about... oh, wait... I didn't realize it was scrollable. Never mind."
After that happens a couple of times, they eventually find their way to the System Preferences.
I respect your choice, but I think it's unfair in this case specifically (but in many other cases too) to say it's about 'pretty' and 'better advertising'.
I read a lot on my mac, and I love the lack of scrollbar. It's one less 'element' on my reading experience (similar to almost all ebook readers not having chrome, like scrollbars and page numbers, or hiding chrome unless specifically requested). And because of how integral and 'decent' using the touchpad is (two finger scroll), I automatically scroll briefly to show the scrollbar in those few instances where I care about what position on the page I'm at.
Of course, that's just one example, but I know many others who feel similarly. 'Apple knows best' doesn't just mean marketing and pretty, it often means decent choices that are good for a large percentage of people, and yes, you have to accept that.
I find apple does do a lot of stuff that doesn't work for me. Even the lack scroll bars I rather hate when I use Finder (and don't get me started on that!). I use an android phone for that very reason.
I don't always like the choices that apple makes for me, and I might reach a point where I opt out completely. I'm just saying that in this case I think apple made a risky but decent choice, that wasn't just about 'pretty' or 'marketing'.
I would go even further and say that the lack of scroll bar in OS X has lead to lower uptake of read material.
Here is what scroll bar does for me:
1. It gives me instant feedback about the size of the document (the shorter the scrollbar the bigger the document).
2. It shows me rough position in the document.
3. Provides reading context (I'm 35% into the document and I'm reading on subject X) which aids memorizing the material.
I'm a mathematician and numbers are my thing. Some people use number memorizing technique where they walk through a familiar place and assign numbers to landmarks. And to recall numbers they walk the route again in their head and "read" the numbers off the landmarks. This is the technique those freaks that can recite thousands and thousand of decimals of Pi use.
In effect the scroll bar does the same for me. It's my landmark and I assign topics to its position which allows me to remember better. If I want to quickly re-read something weeks later I can open the document and within seconds get there just by scroll bar position. And one could say search would work here too, but often times it does not because I don't remember exactly the string I want to find in the document (and some documents are not searchable).
Once I upgraded to Mountain Lion from Snow Leopard, I found the default scroll bar setting extremely bothersome and my read content retention much much lower until I put the scroll bars back.
So another anecdotal reason why dynamically showing/hiding UI elements is usually a bad idea.
I agree for plain documents, but tons of online articles list comments on the same page, so the scroll bar is almost a negative incentive to keep reading.
"I've read this much of the article and I'm only 1/20th of the way down?" [user stops reading, unaware that there's 450 comments and the article is actually pretty short]
I think comments themselves are the “negative incentive”, not the scroll bar. If comments were as informative and well-written as the article, then including them in the total article length is what you want because you would also want to read them.
But, as we all know, comments are usually total garbage. The problem is not that they get included in the scroll bar, but that they get included with the article. We need to fix, or remove comments, not scroll bars.
I use the default scroll bars setting in OS X (Show scrollbars automatically based on mouse or trackpad movement), and I'm never not aware of the page length.
I see it whenever I switch tabs, and I see it whenever I start to scroll. I always have an idea of how long the page is and I don't need a constant reminder of it. It's not like it's a precision instrument anyway - who can precisely gauge the length of an article based on scroll bar length and current window size? Rain Man?
I can switch back to the always-on behavior if I want to, but I haven't wanted to.
Going out of your way as a content author to correct for the user interface quirks of the reader's preferred reading environment seems extraordinary and unnecessary.
Presumably a non-trivial number of iOS and OS X users actually like the fact that scrollbars are hidden from view while reading and it may have been a factor (a small one, admittedly) in their decision process.
I agree with the OP in large measure.