Pagination still sucks
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008There are certain usability patterns that one would think would be in use almost universally across the Web in 2008. Unfortunately, pagination is one of those patterns that companies just can’t seem to get right, and I really can’t understand why.
Retail shops seem to be big offenders when it comes to pagination issues. Piperlime, for instance, not only chooses to use 11px fonts around its site (that’s damn small, kids), but their pagination looks like this:
I scaled down the image a bit, but the thing to realize is that the click target for each (single-digit) page’s link is about 5 pixels wide by 11 pixels tall. The “>>” (next page) link is double the width with a click target of 10 pixels by 11 pixels. That makes each page’s target 55 pixels, and 110 pixels for the next page link. In case you’re not with me yet, that’s an extremely small target, considering that on a 1024×768 pixel display, you’ve got 786,432 pixels to work with, so each link takes up .006936% of the screen (.013987% for the next page link) Try to hit that without really trying. If Piperlime’s designers had added CSS padding of 5 pixels on the left and right and 3 pixels on the top and bottom, they would’ve increased the click targets of each numbered link to 255 pixels (15 x 17), and 340 for the next page link (20 x 17). Just by doing that, they would increase the click target for the next page link by 309%, and by almost 464% for each numbered link!
This might sound like I’m just being a nag. Please trust me when I say that your users appreciate the little things. This is not a huge change, nor a revolutionary change. But it’s a welcome change, and it’s thinking about these kinds of usability decisions that will keep me and other like-minded consumers buying from you versus your competitors.
