The New York Times articles are paginated in the desktop view, but on the mobile site there's no pagination at all. (you can try it with this simulator)

What could be the reasons behind this decision? Wouldn't it be better for mobiles to use pagination too, so less data is downloaded if someone decides to stop reading?

  • Did you look at ux.stackexchange.com/questions/7268/… ?
    – rk.
    Commented Jun 17, 2013 at 2:53
  • @rk. Thanks for the link, but it doesn't answer my question. I'm asking specifically about advantages of dropping pagination just for mobiles, while for me it seems even more in place there.
    – gronostaj
    Commented Jun 17, 2013 at 5:45

2 Answers 2


As an addition to Igor-G's answer.

In my opinion, the best way to solve the problem of

(1) not loading too much content at once and
(2) not having to tap the 'next page' button multiple times,

you should lazy load the content.

To allow your users to get to the bottom of the page, you can just place a (preferably big) 'load more content' button to instantiate the lazy loading the first time. From then on you should lazy load the content with every scroll.

I absolutely hate websites that won't let me get to the footer..


There is no room for pagination in mobile in my view. As a designer your task is to make the experience seamless, easy and hustle free.

Having pagination means that user has to press each page number or next page buttons. This can be quite hard on a small screen especially if you have more than 4-5 pages. Avarage thumb size is 72px making it quite hard to target small links and buttons. As research shows mobile internet not only on the go, but it doesn't mean that we need to make it hard for a person to use our service while they are. Metros, trains, cab rides are bumpy and small buttons make it harder to target them.

In my experience I really cant stand applications or websites where I have to tap the button about 2-3 times just because the menu item is so small and I kept missing it.

While continues scrolling is easy! It's impossible to make a mistake there all you have to do is move your finger/thumb up or down!

  • The average thumb size is between 45 and 57 pixels, your source is correct, you just read it wrong. By the way, according to Apple's Human Interface guidelines it should be 44 x 44 points. Microsoft uses a minimum of 7 mm.
    – Vince C
    Commented Aug 26, 2014 at 6:56
  • The average width of an adult thumb is 1 inch (2.5 cm), which converts to 72 pixels.
    – Igor-G
    Commented Aug 26, 2014 at 9:19
  • Ah, must've misread it myself. 72 pixels is of course an optimal size, but definitely not necessary in every case.
    – Vince C
    Commented Aug 26, 2014 at 9:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.