I’m gathering some notes for a new article, for a big design magazine I won’t spill yet, on footers. I’ll be talking about a lot of the new things being done with footers starting with the “fat” footers that took off last year. So, as any good writer does in preparing for a more substantial piece, I’m digging (researching). I’m coming to you, who always have an opinion to share (and some good insider info as well) to help me find some sites I might not have seen already. I’m pretty bored with gallery sites, so please don’t send me links to those, but do tell me a website (or two) which you think has done something unique or compelling with their footer area and tell me what you love about it, whether you think it communicates well, provides good info, or is just fluff, that sort of thing.
While you’re at it, tell me some of the things you expect to see in a footer. Is there anything you might scroll to the bottom of the page for automatically? What about things you just like to see content wise, or also design wise. What sort of things impress you or make you want to come back? Any other thoughts on footers?
I have a ton of ideas of my own floating around in a couple different moleskines and a napkin or two, but I’ve had such good feedback from you all, it would be lame of me to try to do this all on my own, so as “Johnny Five](http://www.johnny-five.com/ would say, “IN-PUT, IIIIIN-PUUUUT!”
Josh Bruce left a comment on September 23, 2006 at 11:52 am | #
Footers to me are the last thing I look for (as the design itself entails it to be). I expect to see terms of service (TOS), Copyright, Site Index, Accessibility (Adobe does that), Mini Technorati. Things of that nature.
The large footer doesn’t strike me nearly as much as the large header. Or the inclusion of both (flanking). I consider both you and Andy in on this one.
Basically placing some kind of actual content in the footer just seems to be a natural evolution, as we stop chunking in vertical columns (2/ 3 columns wide) and start chunking them horizontally (3 rows high). At which point it is not really a “footer” as we refer to them in writing ie. referencial, citation, “superfluous” information.
I wish I could give you some sites but unfortunately I bounce around a lot. I could describe some things that I’ve seen ““ but no url.
And, finally, there’s an article by Bell (I believe) where he discusses the aesthetic emotion, basically that is what keeps me coming back over and over. Then if the content is good I might come despite not being that ecstatic about the site as a whole. Hope that made sense.
Art Jomp left a comment on September 23, 2006 at 1:22 pm | #
I think I am one of those (few?) people who look for and enjoy when found some unconventional things in a footer. But I do kind of expect the valid XHTML and CSS links, site map, copyright, and sometimes the “plain-text” type of site navigation anyway.
So, I absolutely love the footer on this website, because it’s different (though it is one of those fat ones).
You know, your post got me thinking. What if for a week or two, everyone just got rid of the footers altogether! How uncomfortable would that feel, don’t you think?
Here’s just one link that I lately found helpful for making the footers stick to the bottom of the screen, but I’m sure you’ve had that down on one of your napkins already . . ;)
Ben Gray left a comment on September 23, 2006 at 9:23 pm | #
Well, I like my footer, but that’s just tooting my own horn. It was Powazek’s article that convinced me to do the whole fat footer thing. I’m with Art, seeing a content-filled footer is like icing on the cake of a great website.
Ben Otero left a comment on September 25, 2006 at 11:05 am | #
At the non-profit I work for we decided to include a search form and the option of subscribing to our monthly newsletter in the footer (as well as feeds). I think in content rich sites where it is likely that users would scroll down to continue reading finding additional content in the footer is welcome surprise. The site is here.