The big thing to understand is a lot of people in The Blogosphere(TM) who post articles about UX don't really give a rip about anything other than the pageviews whether it's for ad revenue, establishing themselves as a thought leader, or trying to market their company. Even worse, there are some people who don't even ACTUALLY know much about UX, they just want to post an article about it to spread around LinkedIn and seem relevant by harping about the importance of UX, etc.

Having said all that, if you sift through all the garbage there are some great resources. Some of the big players in the space tend to do it well. InVision's blog, for example. UXPin are pretty good. There are lots of little ones like UXPowerTools' content marketing emails that are starting to do a good job as well.

At this point as someone who is always trying to improve as a UX designer, I have become accustomed to vetting the 100:1 ratio of garbage articles to bad ones.

thanks for the link

unless they're all about integrating bootstrap for customers...

https://www.nngroup.com/

I would definitely subscribe.

http://us13.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9d0a3aa098b89309c0b66b8...

It took a lot more effort/diligence than I had figured it would to keep all the links straight and add what I thought was helpful narrative context. I wasn't having much fun or seeing a whole lot of support, so I stopped.

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.

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.

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.

Ah, of course. He's using it wrong!

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.

That reminds me of my numerical methods professor who gave talks on how to present things - and his lecture was literally the worst at the entire uni and this is not just my opinion, this fact was established by anonymous student vote. He had power point presentation slides stuffed full of formulas - literally 10-20 lines of mathematical theorems and proofs, and he just clicked through the pages, leaving no more than a few minutes for such complex slides.