Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
The Laziest Portfolio Sites on the Internet?

This will read like an attempt to offend designers and/or developers in the short space below, but what I really want is to reconcile the polar emotions I have for long-scroll portfolio websites, and maybe learn about why the trend started.

The long scroll has pervaded the internet to become the more-is-more aesthetic employed by design studios, who show all of their work in one area—what most call blog style. From the information architecture perspective, this limits the unique content areas for users to click to and through, but from a design standpoint, it makes creation and updating extremely easy for the designer. Dropping 20-30 images into Dreamweaver or into <img> tags so they cascade downward is as simple as writing a paper in Microsoft Word (and about as exciting to look at). Despite my lack of enthusiasm for how these sites get made, I find the experience of using them quite exhilarating. It’s playful to pull the mouse wheel up and down, up and down. After over three years of experiencing this phenomenon, I now expect portfolio sites to long scroll, and this made me wonder where it all started. The symptoms of this development have not been historically traced, but according to some, it originated with the Cuban Council, who sill use a lengthy layout to showcase their work, location, and background. (Other sources attribute the long-scroll design to Supershapes.) I failed to locate any pre-2006 sites using the way back machine, but my design peers referenced those sites back in 2004 and 2005 when they began mimicking the layout. Coincidentally, this was about the time that blogging software really took off, and designers would take the short route by using blogspot or MoveableType to layout and display their portfolios. To this day, designers use those blogs on purpose, but those who don’t have been labeled: Issara Willenskomer, who has had users call his site a blog, deems this both inaccurate and unfortunate.

Then again, maybe these long-scroll designers have the user in mind, and want to deliver as much content up front to save them from clicking too deeply into a site. Designer Mitchell Phillips believes so: "…they are aesthetically pleasing to view and by providing a continuous stream of information (images, works, examples) the site is catering to the main audience (in this case, a potential client)." Issara Willenskomer saw the trend happening as a way to reduce click through for designers and non-designers: "In many cases, it would take several clicks before you were at the meat of the content. In most of these instances, this process involved clicking, say, ‘work,’ followed by a submenu where you could click, say, ‘print,’ followed by another submenu where you would have to click an actual project before you saw anything." The current trend of bulking all of the content into one area can frustrate the average user (who may not be a designer). What if they don’t want to scroll all the way through your portfolio to get to your contact information at the footer? For a 20,000 pixel-long site, that’s wasted time. Web designs have punished the users for so long, that this seems acceptable. It wasn’t until Google launched their site, with only a search field that less seemed like more.

And perhaps this is the problem we face today: search engines. Are web designers creating with search engines in mind? With so much emphasis being placed on Search Engine Optimization—getting top placement in Google—it may be all about findability. Does having everything in one place, in one content area from the top to bottom help Google, even though it strains my index finger?

A pervading Search Engine Optimization (SEO) myth exists, where developers (or SEO experts) claim overloading a single web page with text content will increase its top-tier listing. I am and have always been skeptical about these statements, as they recall the days when pioneering marketing firms suggested you name your company with an alpha-numeral such as A and/or 1 in order to get top ranking in the phone book. (Look at all of the dry cleaners or take-out restaurants named A1 to see what I mean.) If that alpha-logic made any sense, Ogilvy would have called his firm David, but he didn’t and it still grew into a multi-million dollar advertising empire. Search engine optimization does not rely on alphanumeric order for the same reason it does not rely on massive amounts of content cluttered into one page: search engine results (particularly Google’s) are organically generated, democratically. And even if you can design websites for search engines, it’s the users who matter most, so why over design for the search and alienate the user? Maybe because it’s the norm. Even Amazon.com was designed in a lengthy format, and it has become the norm for organizing vast amounts of information into a singular storefront. And these days, larger displays make Amazon.com more manageable than ever, and further enable long-scroll sites.

Amazon in Christmas Season, 1998, measuring 2,789 pixels long


Amazon in 2008 at approximately 3,446 pixels long (length may vary depending on your Favorites)

The once standard 12-inch monitor has been replaced by 17-inch laptops, 20-inch desktops, and 30-inchers now available at cut rates. Not only does this allow for a wider screen, but a longer one. Reading the New York Times with a 30-inch monitor in portrait orientation is nearly akin to looking at the printed page in its entirety. Long scroll portfolio sites read just as nicely, with sometimes all of the images appearing at once—in effect killing my need for finger flexion. But it’s another piece of equipment that gets me excited about the long scroll, and it’s not a large display, but a smaller one: the iPhone. I see the iPhone as the reason d’être for making these scroll-until-your-finger-bleeds websites, and it’s a kick to experience. The action of viewing a long and winding website through the iPhone, where you can finger lengthy pages is almost as pleasurable as fanning a stack of one-hundred dollar bills with your thumb over and over. While you’re doing the math on how high the stack of hundreds must be to equal the iPhone’s thickness, go ahead and indulge yourself with the New York Times or Amazon.com on your iPhone.

But if you must head to a long-scroll portfolio, Webleeddesign is very cool thanks to its animated background that drips, drops, and bleeds down the scroll. Other fan favorites include dannyblackman.com with its clouds crawling theme—I wonder which came first, the long scroll or the cloud theme. These long sites on the iPhone are iTastic compared with scrolling on a mouse wheel. Go on, touch a portfolio. Although I’m overstating things, this isn’t my attempt to taut Apple, because I must say, I am disappointed in the new MacBooks because I want two touch-screens hinged together that allow a keyboard to pop-up when I need it, only to disappear when I don’t—like when I’m scrolling an extra long website.

Supershapes website approximately 7,935 pixels long (one of the forerunners)


Danny Blackman website approximately 14,524 pixels long (fun theme)


Sebdesign approximately 23,427 pixels long (very long)


Prodigious web designers may in fact think like this ("We need to add more scrolling since screens are getting bigger and the iPhone lets people swipe at our work") and if so, that’s a shame because the interaction becomes more important than the work—something many designers did not want to happen. I became hypnotized (and still get hypnotized) while winding the mouse wheel down. Up and then down, up and then down. And it’s taken almost 3 years for something to happen: I’m over the scrolling action, and now place an emphasis on the site’s length. The more work that’s on one page, the more impressed I am with the studio. Wow, that’s a long scroll. They have a lot of work compared to me. I suck.

And maybe that’s what they want. Like April Greiman’s 12-inch business card—popular in the 1990s as the biggest card in any business meeting—this could be a game of who’s got the longest site. An effort to create envy. Instill fear. The Goliath to your David. A wise mentor once told me that a designer’s talent was disproportionate to their portfolio size: smaller folio, better designer; larger folio, lesser designer. If they have to impress you with the size of their book, how good can they be? In stark contrast to the long-scroll sites, one of the most successful studios in North America transformed their website in February 2007 by placing nothing but a short film and contact information on the index. If anyone was deserving of the long scroll based on merit, it’d be Cahan Associates, but they opted out, and according to Bill Cahan, they have gotten more inquiries from prospective clients as a result.


All pixel lengths above are approximate. Paparazzi was used for all screen captures.

Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
PUBLISHED ON Oct.28.2008 BY Jason A. Tselentis
Eric’s comment is:

> "the interaction becomes more important than the work"

I'd argue the opposite. Scrolling, at least for me, is much more intuitive and frictionless a way to quickly browse content than, say, hunting for "next" and "previous" links and trying to keep a mental tally of one's position within a site. Design portfolios typically just aren't complex enough to justify complex navigation.

Not all sites do it as well as they should (mine included, to be fair), but the simple addition of realistic image size/compression, anchor tags, and floating navigation can make a world of difference, and allow for a best-of-both-worlds situation.

On Oct.28.2008 at 02:55 PM
darrel’s comment is:

The origins may be more tool-centric than style centric. Blogging tools have become the swiss army knife of the web and naturally lean towards a 'long page, multiple posts' framework.

In addition, the traditional worry of page load speeds as lessened as we've all have much souped up connections these days.

Finally, the 'above the fold' mantra has now been proven to be rather irrelevant in this day and age. Oh, yea, people CAN scroll a web page.

That and I think we probably all got tired of pop-up windows, automatic music, flash intro animations, and forcing user's web browsers to maximum size.

On Oct.28.2008 at 03:41 PM
Tan’s comment is:

>Scrolling, at least for me, is much more intuitive and frictionless a way to quickly browse content than, say, hunting for "next" and "previous" links

Oh good God, yes. I agree.

I love how the act of designing often cryptic navigation all of a sudden became "experience design." Now, suddenly the simple act of scrolling to read -- something employed since the Macedonians and Egyptians -- becomes new again.

On Oct.28.2008 at 08:24 PM
Tan’s comment is:

>Cahan Associates

Haha. Since you brought up this old dinosaur, I'll gladly take the opportunity to nominate it as still the most embarrassingly arrogant, make-an-ass-of-yourself site out there.

Hey Armin, don't we have an old thread panning that thing?

And as if the self-congratulatory, interview video wasn't bad enough -- the site is self-titled "Seeking Greatness." Phhht, I just snorted some coffee out of my nose.

On Oct.28.2008 at 08:32 PM
Noam Almosnino’s comment is:

There is a really good talk about why scrolling is better than clicking:

I prefer the scrolling camp over the
click->reload->repeat, or click->loader->wait camps.

It really depends on the context of the design, but there are cases where scrolling is simply easier, do you really enjoy the pagination on the nytimes articles? I would rather scroll and scan, than click and wait.

On Oct.28.2008 at 08:34 PM
Sébastien Nikolaou’s comment is:

As the creator/owner of sebdesign.eu, I firstly thank you for mentioning my website as one of the longest ones! The truth is that I haven't notice that it was that long, although I'm scrolling it quite often.

I'm not sure if that's something to be proud or ashamed of. As you stated, the simplicity and the click-less environment is something that I had in mind when I was planning this. I liked the concept of having everything I need on one page, maybe for user-laziness purposes, or because it was trendy at the time.

Of course that means that I had to make a hierarchy of the important parts. You wisely mentioned about some contact information on a footer; that would be catastrophic.

The big issue here that although the information architecture is important as in a "regural" website, in that kind of layout, the hierarchy is strictly serial, and not size/menu/grid-dependent.
About the development of such site, it could be as simple as putting tags in a stack, but that wasn't my goal. Every information is semantically and hierarchically positioned, not only in a SEO-friendly way, but in a user accessible and graceful browser degradation point of view. And that means a lot of work.

But, scrolling and scrolling doesn't make it really accessible; I admit it. Every once in a while, I'm reconsidering which works are better.
I always want to remove something, so I can focus on less and better content, but it's not an easy thing, especially for a designer.
So what's the next step?

Displaying the most valuable of this content, but still giving the choice to the user if he wants to see more. That could be accomplished with some jQuery, like "show/hide that part", "accordion" style interaction, etc. But still everything on one page. The concept is the same.

Everything you need is here, but if you want more, it's still here but hidden (click)!

The purpose is not to have lots of works; it's not a "have the longest one" or "have more than you" debate, but how I present these works. And of course there are a lot of portfolios out there that have way more works (equals way more clicks) than some long-scrolling portfolios. So it's not about the size, but about the manner.

On Oct.28.2008 at 08:39 PM
Armin’s comment is:

> Hey Armin, don't we have an old thread panning that thing?

Yup, back in January of last year in this Quipsologies round-up.

On Oct.28.2008 at 09:22 PM
Jason Puckett’s comment is:

I think scrolling can get out of control. I mean, the other trend was showing small thumbnails in the hopes that the 50x50 crop would entice the user to click in order to see the whole image.

And in response to the 'hunting for next and previous links' note, I agree, and attribute that to bad design. If you're going to ask the user to click-through to view your portfolio, you should make it more obvious.

Great observation here. I'm taking a lot of this into consideration and I've been working on my own portfolio site for 2 years now.

On Oct.28.2008 at 09:56 PM
TDee’s comment is:

>Haha. Since you brought up this old dinosaur, I'll gladly take the opportunity to nominate it as still the most embarrassingly arrogant, make-an-ass-of-yourself site out there.

It certainly seems as if he took a page out the old Chiat/Day philosophy and drenched in pretentiousness.

On Oct.28.2008 at 11:57 PM
Josh’s comment is:

So what about horizontal scrolling sites? I guess i need a bookmark folder of these because I can't remember any of the top here, but generally i'm anti-side scroll.

I'm indifferent to scrolling. Some times its great while other times I'd rather have links. I think a site that works well even with Flash is Jesse Kaczmarek.

All this talk of what is right, what is not just sort of reeks heavily of our own professions arrogance. Cahans' site is ridiculous or genius. Armin and Tan's are too dense or excellently detailed. Where mine might be simple and effective or lazy.

What I always thought was great about design was that there could be many different solutions to each problem. Whether we did it the way another would have done it is of no concern to anyone but the client in the end. Designers can be very stubborn and strong willed people, but whether we are in the on the joke or not, it seems to me a bit of the pot calling the kettle black when we go about disparaging other subjectively.

But i guess that's the beauty of American democracy.

On Oct.29.2008 at 03:06 AM
Vlad Mateescu’s comment is:

and this post will become one of the longest I've ever seen :)

On Oct.29.2008 at 04:47 AM
Adam’s comment is:

Try scrolling to the end of this one;

Good Things Should Never End.

On Oct.29.2008 at 05:58 AM
Raphael’s comment is:

I think instead of creating gadgets to avoid scrolling we should probably start taking a look at how to say the same things with less word and images. I am only saying this for portfolio sites. News and data sites will always and should always scroll.

And for the ultimate nightmare in scrolling I present to you http://www.ssahn.com/archives/cat_oneeye.html

On Oct.29.2008 at 11:08 AM
Marie ’s comment is:

It really depends on the context of the design, but there are cases where scrolling is simply easier, do you really enjoy the pagination on the nytimes articles?

I agree, it depends on the context, but I do really like pagination when it comes to reading the nytimes. I like seeing immediately if an article is 3 or 13 pages, and being able to skip ahead or back. If I need to reread or check a name/phrase/fact it's much easier/quicker to find again.

On Oct.29.2008 at 12:15 PM
Abe’s comment is:

I have to go with Josh on this one. Isn't variety, distinction and creativity the beauty of design? I think many designers want to standardize everything. Not that all standards are wrong but there should be flexibility in solutions to design challenges.

Designers can be so religious.

On Oct.29.2008 at 02:37 PM
Robert’s comment is:

I do find it a bit ironic that the page complaining about long web pages is itself one of the longest web pages I've ever seen :-)

On Oct.29.2008 at 02:37 PM
Grey Lady’s comment is:

Slightly off topic but I'm guessing the reason for pagination on nytimes.com is for creating additional advertising space.

On Oct.29.2008 at 06:12 PM
Spencer Cross’s comment is:

I'll second the "if you have to hunt for the next and previous links or think too hard about your position within a site, it's a failure on the part of the designer." As a user, I want more specific control over targeting the information I'm looking for and my location within the site than just "it's somewhere above me" or "it's somewhere below me."

On Oct.29.2008 at 07:52 PM
Mitchell Phillips’s comment is:

As with anything these days, personal preference plays a critical role in most web browsing experiences. Long gone are the days where a designer simply presented their solution and you were forced to view the site from one perspective. Now everything is customizable and web design is no different. There are typically two sets of eyes viewing websites: designers and consumers. As designers we must try and find the balance between what "looks the best" and what "functions the best" and often that balance is a bit off kilter. While I don't have a strong affinity for or against long portfolio sites, I will say that I believe my opinion of them varies with each browsing experience. Sometimes I love sitting back and scrolling through various sites. Other times I get furious if I can't pinpoint the information I'm seeking within seconds. So ultimately I guess it simply comes down to personal choice. If you don't mind the long sites, then scroll away. If they drive you insane, then click the Back arrow and find a new site to browse.

On Oct.30.2008 at 03:07 AM
darrel’s comment is:

"Slightly off topic but I'm guessing the reason for pagination on nytimes.com is for creating additional advertising space."

That's typically the reason.

But, I'll concede that some people like pagination, others (like myself) immediately hunt for the PRINT VERSION and go to the one-page scrolling version.

And, ultimately, that's the great thing about the web. You can serve the same content up multiple ways.

On Oct.30.2008 at 11:36 AM
Greg Scraper’s comment is:

Maybe it's just me, but scrolling is annoying. I tend to use the mouse wheel for it, and the "skritch, skritch, skritch, skritch, SKRITCH SKRITCH SKRITCH" just to get to the bottom of this post about drove me nuts. I can see scrolling a little bit, but in my web design I've tried to avoid it. I think graphically oriented sites shouldn't need the scrolling (especially in Flash, that irritates the crap out of me because I can't even use the scroll wheel). Text oriented sites like blogs and news sites where you're scrolling slowly are fine, and in fact work better.

I'm wary of assigning a "rule" for it either. This is reminding me a lot of the resumé post from a few months ago where everyone jumped on the "one-side,letter-size" bandwagon. Sure, in certain contexts, it makes sense. But there are several where it doesn't. Surely designers don't have to be so mired in rules?

On Oct.30.2008 at 05:03 PM
Kevin M. Scarbrough’s comment is:

Browse down versus Next / Back can be easily fixed with a site built on a database, rather than static pages. Previous / Next / Browse All. The user's preference is now given top priority.

Hm. Now I have to redesign my site.
Get ye to a programmer, sir, go!

On Oct.31.2008 at 10:39 AM
Steven’s comment is:

While I'm not ardently against these blog-style vertical sites, I'm also not really infatuated with them either. Overall, I think this is a fad that will run its course and then be replaced by the next trendy affectation.

I don't think that putting everything in one super-long column is necessarily better usability than having things well organized on sub-level pages. Scrolling up and down on a super long site can be just as annoying and confusing as clicking through a level or two. And is a vertical wheel "skritch" really that much better than a button click? Either way, you're still having to manipulate the mouse to get a desired action on the site.

Mind you, I've also never really liked it when reviewing a portfolio forces you to click linearly (one sample after another) through pieces when there's just a forward and backward button.

On Nov.02.2008 at 03:30 AM
Tom M.’s comment is:

There was an earlier mention of horizontal scrolling.
Synthetic Infatuation uses a combination of links and horizontal scrolling to a successful end, in my view. Perhaps because the horizontal scroll is novel to me because it's unusual, but I find it effective and unique.

On Nov.03.2008 at 10:09 PM
Seth’s comment is:

Although I'm 'guilty' of the Scrolli Portfoli it's because I learned a pretty good lesson about making a complicated portfolio: People don't bother trying to figure anything out, they just start clicking.

I used to have a fully animated Flash-based portfolio but even people in the interactive industry would ignore the navigation and the cues associated with each section, and just randomly click without bothering to read what they were clicking on, or where it was taking them.

After that experience, plus seeing some of the so-called 'creative directors' (who have the biggest say in hiring) out there who run interactive but like to send global emails IN ALL CAPS CUZ HEY IT'S FRIENDLY AND HAS EMPHASIS I figured that the easier a portfolio is to use, the better. If the CDs out there can only scroll and maybe click on a few things then they can't get into too much trouble, now can they?

I also think the 50x50 thumbnail nav elements are stupid: As presenters of information we should know better than to obfuscate the navigation and make users guess where they're going, and hope that the page they land on is something they want to see. Perhaps my earlier portfolio was guilty of that, but I'd like to think that I made it fairly clear.

On Nov.04.2008 at 09:23 AM
Kirk’s comment is:

I just wanted to chime in on the Cahan site.
You can call it pretentious, and you'd probably be right.

But I admire him for walking his talk. His "site" (one page with a video on it, no portfolio anywhere to be seen) really *is* different than what else is out there (for years now), and is intriguing because of it.

By comparison all other design firm sites (that I've seen) start to look and feel startlingly similar, whether they scroll long or not. And they are all designed and made by people that profess to be differentiators (myself included!).

Seems like pretty smart design to me.

On Nov.04.2008 at 01:59 PM
adam’s comment is:

i did a horizontal scroll for my current online portfolio. does that count?

On Nov.04.2008 at 02:44 PM
Jon’s comment is:

His "site" (one page with a video on it, no portfolio anywhere to be seen) really *is* different than what else is out there (for years now), and is intriguing because of it.

But doesn't he contradict the message? Isn't being different the same message as that any other agency portrays? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the "less is more" approach, but design is more than saying you can do it. It's also proof in concept. Ultimately, finding the right balance of information in the context of good design is the key. Design, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

On Nov.04.2008 at 03:41 PM
Greg Scraper’s comment is:

Isn't being different the same message as that any other agency portrays?

This cracks me up. So your remedy to the situation is, instead of being different to be the same, you should be the same to be different? I think you may have inadvertently created an irony vortex.

I get what you're saying, though. Most portfolio sites for agencies beat you to death with everything they've ever done + client lists (wtf?) + bios of the people who probably don't work there anymore + some diatribe about "being different" written by the principal. Cahan says "we're badass, come see why" which is all an agency site really needs to do. The folks who need to see all the other stuff should go to other agencies. That's a message that can't really be just said, it has to be shown, and that's what that site does.

On Nov.05.2008 at 01:17 PM
adam’s comment is:

oops, i forgot the point to my post two up (aside from some shameless self-promotion; )

with my horizontal scroll, some of my windows can be like 3000 pixels wide (thats why i posted) . . .

On Nov.05.2008 at 07:58 PM
mark’s comment is:

Tapping the space bar will scroll down 1 page. Makes the long scroll sites nice and easy to scan.

On Nov.06.2008 at 04:00 PM
Tom M.’s comment is:

Mark, how do you then scroll back "up" one page at a time? For it to be really easy, I think scanning both forward and back is essential.

On Nov.06.2008 at 07:10 PM
Mr. Frankie L’s comment is:

Very interesting article...From my personal experience around 2005, I was looking for a new design job. I learned from searching sites like Creative Hotlist, for each job posting, hundreds of people would apply and include their web links. At this time, most portfolio websites had links and sub-links which did take awhile for a recruiter to get to the "meat." To allow immediate gratification; a quick fix, I designed a teaser site with no navigation but instead allowed one to do a quick scroll down, and get an immediate impression of my abilities. This function driven motive seemed to have paid off as I did end up getting a job because somebody had seen my site.

So I think sometimes these sites are functionally valid, and there is something visually satisfying in seeing a long site laid out with modular components, giving it neo-modernist appeal.

On Nov.06.2008 at 08:09 PM
Alie’s comment is:

I tend to find that click -by- click websites drive me batty, I much prefer to scroll through the content.

By the way Adam, good job on the self promotion, I find your site quite creative, simple, and easy to navigate...why can't more people be like you?

To me it seems that if the designer wants you to click on a thousand pages to view their work, the site tends to be cluttered at times, and not very user friendly.....then again this could just be me being picky. I like simplicity.

On Nov.13.2008 at 07:03 PM
marghe’s comment is:

oh well, isn't that always a matter of who has it longer? =D

On Nov.14.2008 at 10:54 AM
grapplica’s comment is:

Hehe, I once made a portfolio-site for an agency I worked and made that extra long/deep on purpose. Check Snow By LG&F

On Nov.19.2008 at 10:27 AM
Danny Blackman’s comment is:

The theme came first. I wanted my site to feel as if you were descending through the clouds with each click.

I've always liked one-page folios for designers as it allows users to quickly scan through the work. Personally, i hate clicking through pages and ages of work to see one nice piece. I like having them all there in one place, full res, in all their glory to browse at my leisure. I find it much more compelling.

So the one-page idea fit my concept, i could put everything on one page then use JS to animate the decent. No heavy flash, or complex after effects transitions. Plus i was already a fan of the structure so a one-page layout made sense for me.

On Nov.27.2008 at 07:25 AM
Jason Tselentis’s comment is:

Danny, thanks for chiming in. Your theme is neato, I'll give you that, and from a list of designers I surveyed, your folio came in as the #1 favorite single-page theme—I suppose that counts for something.

On Nov.30.2008 at 09:59 AM
gregor jamroski’s comment is:

Back in the days when 800 x 600 was the target resolution, I had a client who complained about roughly 200 pixels of scrolling. I thought about it a minute and said, "hey this ain't raking hay, you're just moving your finger on the scroll wheel, what's the big deal? If your content is compelling, users will scroll, if it's not, they'll move on."

On Dec.01.2008 at 10:58 AM
Jason Tselentis’s comment is:

If your content is compelling, users will scroll, if it's not, they'll move on.

I suppose scrollability resides in the fingers of the beholder.

On Dec.04.2008 at 01:01 PM
Douglas Bonneville’s comment is:

I was very, very inspired by this article. It smacked of being "right on". I did a complete redesign of my site because of this article. I got everything on one page. When I thought of putting it all there, on one page, what I felt like I needed to say melted away, and what I should say became very clear. It did wonders for my thought process. How cool! I love when an idea is a paradigm shift. This is certainly a paradigm shift!

Take a look, if you like: www.bonfx.com

Great, great article. I linked to it from a few other design places...


On Jan.18.2009 at 01:25 AM
Joe ’s comment is:

This was a great read. I've been looking for sites similar to mine(portfolio sites). And for my client base my site does what I need it to do - showcase my work as soon as the user gets to my site. Everyone has some great comments and I look forward to reading more.

On Feb.12.2009 at 04:28 PM
Andy Malhan’s comment is:

Why is no-one talking about load time? Am I missing something here?

I have no issue scrolling a page, but damned if I'm going to wait for a 7000px long page to load.

Isn't THIS the reason why NY Times uses the links?

On Feb.13.2009 at 09:09 AM