As a user, it’s a decent feature because I get to view, say, news coverage of some current event from multiple sources; and as a publisher, why do I care about where else my users go to consume media?
Okay the links are clearly not on the page itself. You can see at the top that the UI is clearly distinct from the website itself and is more like a feature of the browser than anything else. As far as I can see, it’s just a convenient way of displaying search results for the headline without the user having to manually search it themselves.
And well, that’s really a strawman argument since that is not at all what Google is doing here. Equating a news site and the website of a corporation that sells actual products isn’t really meaningful.
Really, it’s like berating Spotify for having their radio feature because it can show me similar songs to the one I’m listening to. It’s a feature that doesn’t really hurt anyone, and on the contrary, benefits the majority of people. I’m sure Tyler’s fine with Spotify playing some Frank Ocean on his radio.
users don’t understand browser vs site differences.
You say that comparing two rival news businesses with two rival car businesses is a straw man and then bring up a music streaming service which pays each of the artists for the songs played.
Google isn’t running a news service, and paying site owners for displaying their articles.
This would be like if while using the Spotify app, Siri chirped out with “hey we have songs on on Apple Music”.
Have anything to back up that claim of user ignorance? Also, if we suppose that the claim is correct, does it make a difference?
The straw man is in promoting a product on a rival’s site. Nothing even remotely like that is happening here. The Spotify example was mentioned because music suggestions are vaguely analogous to information media, but I take your point. Even still, my point stands.
And I disagree that it’s like that. In that case both Spotify and Apple Music would be trying to get users listening to the same thing on different platforms. Articles on the other hand are some person’s unique view of some topic, and my browser giving me suggestions for other people’s viewpoints on the same topic is nothing to beef about.
Apple literally changed the way javascript alert()/etc look in Safari because users got confused that it was the webpage showing a dialog, not the OS/browser.
In this very statement you also acknowledge that it is possible for a UI to be unambiguous, as Apple did change it so as to make it unambiguous.
Hence your claim about the UI of the suggested pages is meaningless, since you’d need to show that this particular UI falls into one of the two categories.
Apple changed the elements in question from native-styled (i.e. they look and behave exactly like a native macOS/iOS element) elements that are modal above the whole browser (i.e. they blocked all interaction with Safari while open) into in-tab plain white elements that look like a plain-jane javascript html “modal” window.
The chrome UI in question is literally a white bar at the bottom of the page - how could anyone determine whether it’s chrome’s chrome, or in-page content?
The rest of your ‘points’ are arguing that the news sites in question wouldn’t be concerned by this move.
Did you happen to notice who wrote the tweet thats linked to? The Executive Editor of The Verge. He seems none to pleased about this change, for what I think are pretty obvious reasons.
If you want to put Google on some nerd pedestal and believe nothing they do can be faulted, thats your choice, but dont expect other people to follow your logic.
If you want to put Google on some nerd pedestal and believe nothing they do can be faulted, thats your choice, but dont expect other people to follow your logic.
You’re taking some large leaps here. I do think that Google have fucked up with AMP overall, and I don’t think that Google can do no wrong: they’re a terrible company for user privacy and they’ve shit all over their “Don’t Be Evil” slogan recently.
However, we’re talking about a very specific feature of one of their services, and as a user I welcome a little tab that gives me related articles on X topic, regardless of where The Verge want me to consume information.
I didn’t realise that I had to outline my position on Google as a whole to be able to have an opinion on something that they do.
As a user you’re entitled to want what you want, but you seem to have forgotten the part where you said:
as a publisher, why do I care about where else my users go to consume media
You claim to acknowledge Google’s faults, but you seem unable to comprehend how this change could affect online news companies, either now or in any future incarnations of this ‘feature’.
You claim to acknowledge Google’s faults, but you seem unable to comprehend how this change could affect online news companies, either now or in any future incarnations of this ‘feature’.
It’s the “driving traffic away” part I don’t agree with, but since you’ve dissolved this discussion into pure ad hominem attacks, I won’t be continuing with the conversation.
As someone who’s been doing UI design for more than a decade and has also followed this part of the industry even longer I can assure you there are no meaningful interfaces that wouldn’t confuse at least some people. What we all try to do is each day reduce number of confused people which you can see by over time evolving UI widgets and patterns.
This is kind of ridiculous but hardly surprising.
Anyone paying attention should have realised “speed” wasn’t the goal of AMP, it was the lure for the site viewers.
Do they really think publishers will accept this?
This post is pretty light on details. I can’t figure out how to repro.
One of the replies mentioned chrome canary I think?
From further feedback on Twitter this may not actually be related to amp, and just be google dickish-ness across any site.
https://twitter.com/ow/status/990653956010455041?s=21
All the more reason not to jump to conclusions before investigating thoroughly ;-p
Now I can read the same article multiple times with the word order changed. I am glad I am avoiding all this as much as I can.
Honestly I don’t see how this is a big deal.
As a user, it’s a decent feature because I get to view, say, news coverage of some current event from multiple sources; and as a publisher, why do I care about where else my users go to consume media?
Why would commercial site operators care that a browser vendor is presenting unsolicited links to their competitors, to visitors?
Let’s shift the industry: what if chrome started showing links to Chrysler on Ford’s website? Why would Ford care?
Okay the links are clearly not on the page itself. You can see at the top that the UI is clearly distinct from the website itself and is more like a feature of the browser than anything else. As far as I can see, it’s just a convenient way of displaying search results for the headline without the user having to manually search it themselves.
And well, that’s really a strawman argument since that is not at all what Google is doing here. Equating a news site and the website of a corporation that sells actual products isn’t really meaningful.
Really, it’s like berating Spotify for having their radio feature because it can show me similar songs to the one I’m listening to. It’s a feature that doesn’t really hurt anyone, and on the contrary, benefits the majority of people. I’m sure Tyler’s fine with Spotify playing some Frank Ocean on his radio.
users don’t understand browser vs site differences.
You say that comparing two rival news businesses with two rival car businesses is a straw man and then bring up a music streaming service which pays each of the artists for the songs played.
Google isn’t running a news service, and paying site owners for displaying their articles.
This would be like if while using the Spotify app, Siri chirped out with “hey we have songs on on Apple Music”.
Have anything to back up that claim of user ignorance? Also, if we suppose that the claim is correct, does it make a difference?
The straw man is in promoting a product on a rival’s site. Nothing even remotely like that is happening here. The Spotify example was mentioned because music suggestions are vaguely analogous to information media, but I take your point. Even still, my point stands.
And I disagree that it’s like that. In that case both Spotify and Apple Music would be trying to get users listening to the same thing on different platforms. Articles on the other hand are some person’s unique view of some topic, and my browser giving me suggestions for other people’s viewpoints on the same topic is nothing to beef about.
Apple literally changed the way javascript alert()/etc look in Safari because users got confused that it was the webpage showing a dialog, not the OS/browser.
In this very statement you also acknowledge that it is possible for a UI to be unambiguous, as Apple did change it so as to make it unambiguous.
Hence your claim about the UI of the suggested pages is meaningless, since you’d need to show that this particular UI falls into one of the two categories.
Apple changed the elements in question from native-styled (i.e. they look and behave exactly like a native macOS/iOS element) elements that are modal above the whole browser (i.e. they blocked all interaction with Safari while open) into in-tab plain white elements that look like a plain-jane javascript html “modal” window.
The chrome UI in question is literally a white bar at the bottom of the page - how could anyone determine whether it’s chrome’s chrome, or in-page content?
I don’t think you’re looking at the right picture: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Db1OtiSWkAEKPag.jpg
But we’re digressing. What actual point are you trying to make here, because I don’t see it.
look at the first picture, which is what the user sees, seemingly as part of the site.
This whole thing is in response to this claim:
The next sentence was:
We could argue about weather or not a user will think it’s part of the site all day, but it doesn’t really matter.
And I made many points in the post that you quoted, not just that one.
The rest of your ‘points’ are arguing that the news sites in question wouldn’t be concerned by this move.
Did you happen to notice who wrote the tweet thats linked to? The Executive Editor of The Verge. He seems none to pleased about this change, for what I think are pretty obvious reasons.
If you want to put Google on some nerd pedestal and believe nothing they do can be faulted, thats your choice, but dont expect other people to follow your logic.
You’re taking some large leaps here. I do think that Google have fucked up with AMP overall, and I don’t think that Google can do no wrong: they’re a terrible company for user privacy and they’ve shit all over their “Don’t Be Evil” slogan recently.
However, we’re talking about a very specific feature of one of their services, and as a user I welcome a little tab that gives me related articles on X topic, regardless of where The Verge want me to consume information.
I didn’t realise that I had to outline my position on Google as a whole to be able to have an opinion on something that they do.
As a user you’re entitled to want what you want, but you seem to have forgotten the part where you said:
You claim to acknowledge Google’s faults, but you seem unable to comprehend how this change could affect online news companies, either now or in any future incarnations of this ‘feature’.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
And you’ve failed to demonstrate how.
You’re fucking kidding me.
You don’t see how driving traffic away from a site to it’s competitors could affect them?
You’re being deliberately obtuse.
It’s the “driving traffic away” part I don’t agree with, but since you’ve dissolved this discussion into pure ad hominem attacks, I won’t be continuing with the conversation.
Have a nice day dude!
It’s literally in the tweet thread directly from the verge editor.
No, they changed it to confuse fewer people.
As someone who’s been doing UI design for more than a decade and has also followed this part of the industry even longer I can assure you there are no meaningful interfaces that wouldn’t confuse at least some people. What we all try to do is each day reduce number of confused people which you can see by over time evolving UI widgets and patterns.
The big issue is that every time Google has provided any kind of listing anywhere, ever, they’ve allowed companies through AdWords to get to the top.
And that becomes super shady.