Why do pull quotes exist on the web?
There you are reading an article when suddenly it’s interrupted by a big piece of text that’s repeating something you just read in the previous paragraph. Or it’s interrupted by a big piece of text that’s spoiling a sentence that you are about to read in subsequent paragraphs.
There you are reading an article when suddenly it’s interrupted by a big piece of text that’s repeating something you just read in the previous paragraph.
To be honest, I find pull quotes pretty annoying in printed magazines too, but I can at least see the justification for them there: if you’re flipping through a magazine, they act as eye-catching inducements to stop and read (in much the same way that good photography does or illustration does). But once you’re actually reading an article, they’re incredibly frustrating.
You either end up learning to blot them out completely, or you end up reading the same sentence twice.
You either end up learning to blot them out completely, or you end up reading the same sentence twice. Blotting them out is easier said than done on a small-screen device. At least on a large screen, pull quotes can be shunted off to the side, but on handheld devices, pull quotes really make no sense at all.
Are pull quotes online an example of a skeuomorph? “An object or feature which imitates the design of a similar artefact made from another material.”
I think they might simply be an example of unexamined assumptions. The default assumption is that pull quotes on the web are fine, because everyone else is doing pull quotes on the web. But has anybody ever stopped to ask why? It was this same spiral of unexamined assumptions that led to the web drowning in a sea of splash pages in the early 2000s.
I think they might simply be an example of unexamined assumptions.
I’m genuinely curious to hear the design justification for pull quotes on the web (particularly on mobile), because as a reader, I can give plenty of reasons for their removal.
“Are pull quotes online an example of a skeuomorph?”adactio.com/journal/11102
“I think they might simply be an example of unexamined assumptions.” | Why do pull quotes exist on the web? adactio.com/journal/11102
As I’ve said many times before: Pull quotes on the web are hot garbage. “PULL QUOTES ON THE WEB ARE HOT GARBAGE!”adactio.com/journal/11102
Pull quotes on screen, as in print, are conceived as an entry point: they catch your eye and re-engage you. adactio.com/journal/11102
Are pull quotes necessary for web content? They seem ubiquitous; this article questions their use adactio.com/journal/11102
Why do pull quotes exist on the web? adactio.com/journal/11102 👏
“Why do pull quotes exist on the web?” I can’t stand them, personally. adactio.com/journal/11102
RealCSSTricks: RT jasonsantamaria: So, I think adactio is right, maybe just unexamined assumptions: adactio.com/journal/11102
A bunch of designers believe all sentences are equally important: adactio.com/journal/11102
Earlier today I was reading Jeremy Keith’s latest post, Why do pull quotes exist on the web?, and I found myself nodding along. I enjoy the visual distinction that pull quotes offer from a design viewpoint, but their main purpose in print (to entice you to read an article while flipping pages) is less impactful on the web. I’m already reading the article when I see most pull quotes, so the repetition leads me to skip over them.
Then I thought about my own blog and about how I’ve used quotes there from time to time. And I discovered that I’m accidentally quite happy with my implementation because I rarely pull quotes from my own article. Instead, I’ve tried to intentionally pull quotes from other articles that illuminate what I’m talking about and build upon it. I then use that quote to link back to its source in a purposefully web-like fashion.
While discussing this on Twitter with a few others, a new name for these types of quotes came to me: Push Quotes.So what is a Push Quote?
To me, it’s a few separate elements:
- A quote from a separate source (book, website, video, etc.)
- That is related to the premise of the current article
- With a credited source (preferably the author, or the publication name if no author is given)
- And a link to the original source if one is still available
The web is built on threads of conversation, sharing, and iteration. I like that the idea of push quotes could help further strengthen and interweave those threads, all while making articles more visually appealing. So while I agree with Jeremy that gratuitous pull quotes are “an example of unexamined assumptions,” I think I’ll keep using my push quotes as much as I can.
The pull quote is dead, long live the push quote!
Why do pull quotes exist on the web? A fine question… adactio.com/journal/11102
I don’t necessarily agree with this opinion. A fun user test is to see how users “read” articles that are text-heavy adactio.com/journal/11102
Good question: Why do we have pull quotes on the Web? adactio.com/journal/11102
Pull quotes are like arrestor hooks for the skim-reader - adactio.com/journal/11102
Why do they? Certainly its not for those who are reading the content 🤔 // Why do pull quotes exist on the web? adactio.com/journal/11102
Pull quotes on the web: why are they still a thing? adactio.com/journal/11102
Excellent question. They shouldn’t exist in mobile layouts, perhaps others. > Why do pull quotes exist on the web? adactio.com/journal/11102
I love the visual design of pullquotes but they should be tl;dr summaries sprinkled through the content. adactio.com/journal/11102
I’m not the only one that find pull quotes incredibly frustrating.adactio.com/journal/11102 👍
Why would we use pull quotes on the web? Valid question. adactio.com/journal/11102
I’m glad someone said this: adactio.com/journal/11102
I treat pull quotes like ads and scroll right past them, when I can. adactio.com/journal/11102
Exactly. Pull quotes are oddly repetitive and distracting online. adactio.com/journal/11102
“on handheld devices, pull quotes really make no sense at all.” adactio.com/journal/11102
With bounce rates being what they are, I’d argue online pullquotes serve the same end as print - to grab attention adactio.com/journal/11102
“I think [pullquotes on the web] might simply be an example of unexamined assumptions.“ adactio.com/journal/11102
Exactly! Stop with the pull quotes already: adactio.com/journal/11102
Adactio: Journal—Why do pull quotes exist on the web? adactio.com/journal/11102?…
“Why do pull quotes exist on the web?” <— good questionadactio.com/journal/11102
Yes, pull quotes annoy me so much. Either repeat what you’ve read or spoil what you’re about to read. adactio.com/journal/11102
Why do pull quotes exist on the web? They shouldn’t, but probably because it looks nice. adactio.com/journal/11102?…
“Why do pull quotes exist on the web?” — adactio.com/journal/11102 They are unnecessary and annoying. Death to pull quotes.
I’ve had the same questions: adactio.com/journal/11102
On pull quotes on the web: adactio.com/journal/11102
He does not mean quotes from other sources. I would like to see all the ego-pushing “tweet this sentence” purged. adactio.com/journal/11102
Why do pull quotes exist on the web? adactio.com/journal/11102 //They have their use but we just present them badly on web pages.
Hvorfor bruger vi overhovedet indlejrede citater i webtekster? adactio.com/journal/11102
Must-read: “Why do pull quotes exist on the web?” — adactio.com/journal/11102
What are your thoughts on pull quotes in web content? adactio.com/journal/11102 Interesting perspective in this post.
My feelings on pull quotes, described perfectly by Jeremy Keith. adactio.com/journal/11102
Pull quotes on the web make no sense adactio.com/journal/11102
Pull quotes on the web annoy me SO MUCH. I don’t know if any designers are following me rn but if you are please take note!
I particularly like the comment about push quotes. More push quotes, fewer pull quotes!
good question: https://adactio.com/journal/11102