In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote: [quote] Okay, this article probably isn't talking about the things you are referring to. At least, I don't think so.
Those are frameworks you can set up on your website to work better with mobile devices (less images, less javascript, etc.). News sites opt-in because it's cheaper than paying a web developer to figure it out themselves, and random conspiracy bloggers do the same for the same reason (I guess, or maybe Wordpress uses it automatically).
Basically why all vBulletin forums look the same-ish, because they're using the same tool that comes with a fairly packaged design.
But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time.
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough.
So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product.
I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos.
So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones.
Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved?
Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.”
It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else.
Dude is just taking pot shot at InfoWars for not agreeing with him, don't mind it.
What percentage of stuff on Infowars do you think is accurate?
On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote: [quote] Okay, this article probably isn't talking about the things you are referring to. At least, I don't think so.
Those are frameworks you can set up on your website to work better with mobile devices (less images, less javascript, etc.). News sites opt-in because it's cheaper than paying a web developer to figure it out themselves, and random conspiracy bloggers do the same for the same reason (I guess, or maybe Wordpress uses it automatically).
Basically why all vBulletin forums look the same-ish, because they're using the same tool that comes with a fairly packaged design.
But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time.
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough.
So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product.
I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos.
So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones.
Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved?
Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.”
It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else.
Dude is just taking pot shot at InfoWars for not agreeing with him, don't mind it.
Info Wars doesn’t agree with the reality we live in. My disagreement with it is just a nature result of living in a world where lizard people are not real.
On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote: [quote] But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time.
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough.
So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product.
I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos.
So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones.
Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved?
Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.”
It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else.
Dude is just taking pot shot at InfoWars for not agreeing with him, don't mind it.
Info Wars doesn’t agree with the reality we live in. My disagreement with it is just a nature result of living in a world where lizard people are not real.
Your talking to RiK. He doesn't live in our reality either so I'm sure the two get along beautifully.
On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote: [quote] But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time.
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough.
So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product.
I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos.
So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones.
Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved?
Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.”
It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else.
Dude is just taking pot shot at InfoWars for not agreeing with him, don't mind it.
Info Wars doesn’t agree with the reality we live in. My disagreement with it is just a nature result of living in a world where lizard people are not real.
I had one of the smartest conservatives I know personally argue to me, sincerely, that he believes that stuff like that is just trolling. As in he doesn't literally think they are lizard people but evil.
Moodoh, did you have that example or care to answer whether that CapitalismSucksFEELTHEBERN.ru thing was real?
Here is Alex Jones on Infowars explaining that the interdimensional lizards behind the UN are into the sacrifice of children, and that's why vaccines exist.
On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote: [quote] Here is the verge article about it from a year ago. I don’t know how much has changed since then, but the systems that google and facebook set up made it harder for the end user to tell “does this website look professional.” Everyone had dealt with this problem when looking for a product review on google and every site looks weirdly similar.
Okay, this article probably isn't talking about the things you are referring to. At least, I don't think so.
Those are frameworks you can set up on your website to work better with mobile devices (less images, less javascript, etc.). News sites opt-in because it's cheaper than paying a web developer to figure it out themselves, and random conspiracy bloggers do the same for the same reason (I guess, or maybe Wordpress uses it automatically).
Basically why all vBulletin forums look the same-ish, because they're using the same tool that comes with a fairly packaged design.
But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time.
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough.
So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product.
I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos.
So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones.
Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved?
Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.”
It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else.
Dude I get it. I understand how it works. It makes all websites look similar and lacks options to make the NYT look like the NYT. So some blog looks like a news article until someone does a little digging, which is hard on your phone sometimes. Its goal is making pages load faster on phones, which is what the web designers believe people want. Just like how smart phone email clients made phishing easier because its harder to see the full email address on them.
On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: [quote]
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough.
So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product.
I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos.
So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones.
Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved?
Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.”
It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else.
Dude is just taking pot shot at InfoWars for not agreeing with him, don't mind it.
Info Wars doesn’t agree with the reality we live in. My disagreement with it is just a nature result of living in a world where lizard people are not real.
Your talking to RiK. He doesn't live in our reality either so I'm sure the two get along beautifully.
Sometime I want to be part of the performance art that is RiK.
President Donald Trump accepted the resignation of Tom Price, the embattled health and human services secretary, Friday in the midst of a scandal over his use of private planes.
Price's departure came as he's being investigated by the department's inspector general for using private jets for multiple government business trips, even to fly distances often as short as from Washington to Philadelphia. The scandal infuriated Trump, who viewed the controversy as a needless distraction from his agenda. Over the course of the week, Trump fumed to aides about Price's flights, which he deemed "stupid," according to multiple sources. Instead of moving past the storm, Price's offer to reimburse the government for only a fraction of the flights' costs enraged Trump further. Price and his aides have insisted that the trips he took by private charter jet had been approved through the usual legal and ethics offices at HHS. But the appearance of a millionaire Cabinet secretary flying routes easily navigated by far cheaper means proved an optics nightmare for an administration already accused of being out of touch with regular Americans.
On September 30 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote: Being more critical of who is posting news articles to their site would go a long way. There were articles about who Facebook’s auto formatting was turning the most poorly made bullshit news site to a CNN quality product. That seems like something they could look at and maybe adjust or turn off.
As far as I know (and I honestly don't know much, because I don't use Facebook at all), but articles aren't even posted directly on Facebook. There are snippets from existing articles that will show up depending on how people link the content (and how the website works with Facebook's API), and users will share those links which will include those snippets. But people don't use Facebook as a news posting medium, they use it as a sharing tool for their own sites.
Here is the verge article about it from a year ago. I don’t know how much has changed since then, but the systems that google and facebook set up made it harder for the end user to tell “does this website look professional.” Everyone had dealt with this problem when looking for a product review on google and every site looks weirdly similar.
Okay, this article probably isn't talking about the things you are referring to. At least, I don't think so.
Those are frameworks you can set up on your website to work better with mobile devices (less images, less javascript, etc.). News sites opt-in because it's cheaper than paying a web developer to figure it out themselves, and random conspiracy bloggers do the same for the same reason (I guess, or maybe Wordpress uses it automatically).
Basically why all vBulletin forums look the same-ish, because they're using the same tool that comes with a fairly packaged design.
But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time.
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough.
So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
Until WSJ readers are willing to pay money for significant visual distinction from Infowars... yes?
It's like how everybody uses Arial as their font (which is already a billion times better than comic sans in the 90s)...
President Donald Trump accepted the resignation of Tom Price, the embattled health and human services secretary, Friday in the midst of a scandal over his use of private planes.
Price's departure came as he's being investigated by the department's inspector general for using private jets for multiple government business trips, even to fly distances often as short as from Washington to Philadelphia. The scandal infuriated Trump, who viewed the controversy as a needless distraction from his agenda. Over the course of the week, Trump fumed to aides about Price's flights, which he deemed "stupid," according to multiple sources. Instead of moving past the storm, Price's offer to reimburse the government for only a fraction of the flights' costs enraged Trump further. Price and his aides have insisted that the trips he took by private charter jet had been approved through the usual legal and ethics offices at HHS. But the appearance of a millionaire Cabinet secretary flying routes easily navigated by far cheaper means proved an optics nightmare for an administration already accused of being out of touch with regular Americans.
On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote: [quote] Okay, this article probably isn't talking about the things you are referring to. At least, I don't think so.
Those are frameworks you can set up on your website to work better with mobile devices (less images, less javascript, etc.). News sites opt-in because it's cheaper than paying a web developer to figure it out themselves, and random conspiracy bloggers do the same for the same reason (I guess, or maybe Wordpress uses it automatically).
Basically why all vBulletin forums look the same-ish, because they're using the same tool that comes with a fairly packaged design.
But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time.
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough.
So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product.
I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos.
So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones.
Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved?
Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.”
It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else.
Dude I get it. I understand how it works. It makes all websites look similar and lacks options to make the NYT look like the NYT. So some blog looks like a news article until someone does a little digging, which is hard on your phone sometimes. Its goal is making pages load faster on phones, which is what the web designers believe people want. Just like how smart phone email clients made phishing easier because its harder to see the full email address on them.
Okay, so you understand that the tool is literally something to make your website look more generic to load faster. And is something you have to take the time and effort and intentional action to make your website look generic.
And you still want to blame Google for the NYT looking identical to a Word Press blog?
On September 30 2017 03:04 WolfintheSheep wrote: [quote] As far as I know (and I honestly don't know much, because I don't use Facebook at all), but articles aren't even posted directly on Facebook. There are snippets from existing articles that will show up depending on how people link the content (and how the website works with Facebook's API), and users will share those links which will include those snippets. But people don't use Facebook as a news posting medium, they use it as a sharing tool for their own sites.
Here is the verge article about it from a year ago. I don’t know how much has changed since then, but the systems that google and facebook set up made it harder for the end user to tell “does this website look professional.” Everyone had dealt with this problem when looking for a product review on google and every site looks weirdly similar.
Okay, this article probably isn't talking about the things you are referring to. At least, I don't think so.
Those are frameworks you can set up on your website to work better with mobile devices (less images, less javascript, etc.). News sites opt-in because it's cheaper than paying a web developer to figure it out themselves, and random conspiracy bloggers do the same for the same reason (I guess, or maybe Wordpress uses it automatically).
Basically why all vBulletin forums look the same-ish, because they're using the same tool that comes with a fairly packaged design.
But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time.
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough.
So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product.
I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos.
So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones.
Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved?
Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.”
Can I have some of what you're smoking?
Next typesetters will be told they can't use the same font to publish quality newspapers as they do yellow press crap. It's up to the quality newspapers to not go to the printers and say "just give me the default style". But similarly, the publishers benefit from having as much volume as possible, because they get paid, so if they find that they can pay a typesetter a fixed amount for a "default style" so that every tom dick and harry can print their broadsheet for an affordable price... that's what they'll do, right?
And don't tell me you can easily distinguish pulp press from quality based on visual style alone...
On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote: [quote] But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time.
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough.
So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product.
I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos.
So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones.
Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved?
Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.”
It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else.
Dude I get it. I understand how it works. It makes all websites look similar and lacks options to make the NYT look like the NYT. So some blog looks like a news article until someone does a little digging, which is hard on your phone sometimes. Its goal is making pages load faster on phones, which is what the web designers believe people want. Just like how smart phone email clients made phishing easier because its harder to see the full email address on them.
Okay, so you understand that the tool is literally something to make your website look more generic to load faster. And is something you have to take the time and effort and intentional action to make your website look generic.
And you still want to blame Google for the NYT looking identical to a Word Press blog?
No, I want to blame Google for not provide a service that allowed the NYT to look different from Infowars or some trash conservative blog filled with bullshit. You can read articles about publishers saying the AMP has flaws and limitations that they cannot control.
But because it is the industry standard now, there are few options for websites. And I am not even saying it should be banned or removed. It should just be improved to address issues like what we are talking about. People wrote this software, they can write more software to address problems. Change the goal of the software.
The tech industry is the only place I know where someone makes a product that has a drawback and then people argue that drawback cannot be corrected.
On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: [quote]
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough.
So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product.
I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos.
So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones.
Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved?
Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.”
It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else.
Dude I get it. I understand how it works. It makes all websites look similar and lacks options to make the NYT look like the NYT. So some blog looks like a news article until someone does a little digging, which is hard on your phone sometimes. Its goal is making pages load faster on phones, which is what the web designers believe people want. Just like how smart phone email clients made phishing easier because its harder to see the full email address on them.
Okay, so you understand that the tool is literally something to make your website look more generic to load faster. And is something you have to take the time and effort and intentional action to make your website look generic.
And you still want to blame Google for the NYT looking identical to a Word Press blog?
No, I want to blame Google for not provide a service that allowed the NYT to look different from Infowars or some trash conservative blog filled with bullshit. You can read articles about publishers saying the AMP has flaws and limitations that they cannot control.
But because it is the industry standard now, there are few options for websites. And I am not even saying it should be banned or removed. It should just be improved to address issues like what we are talking about. People wrote this software, they can write more software to address problems. Change the goal of the software.
The tech industry is the only place I know where someone makes a product that has a drawback and then people argue that drawback cannot be corrected.
It's not an industry standard. It's a piece of proprietary software and it's shit. But because writing mobile-aware software is fucking hard, it is also the best option available for lots of websites. But it's still a choice. NYT can choose to not use it, have long loading times and a broken mobile layout. A news site I've been using a lot lately to stay up to date on whether my street has turned into a warzone yet has their own mobile layout: lavanguardia.es. It is fucking terrible. AMP is better than that.
And for that matter, the only forums I am able to actually post to on my mobile without going mad is TL. So kudos to R1CH for making TL about as mobile-friendly as a forum can get.
On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: [quote]
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough.
So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product.
I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos.
So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones.
Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved?
Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.”
It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else.
Dude I get it. I understand how it works. It makes all websites look similar and lacks options to make the NYT look like the NYT. So some blog looks like a news article until someone does a little digging, which is hard on your phone sometimes. Its goal is making pages load faster on phones, which is what the web designers believe people want. Just like how smart phone email clients made phishing easier because its harder to see the full email address on them.
Okay, so you understand that the tool is literally something to make your website look more generic to load faster. And is something you have to take the time and effort and intentional action to make your website look generic.
And you still want to blame Google for the NYT looking identical to a Word Press blog?
No, I want to blame Google for not provide a service that allowed the NYT to look different from Infowars or some trash conservative blog filled with bullshit. You can read articles about publishers saying the AMP has flaws and limitations that they cannot control.
But because it is the industry standard now, there are few options for websites. And I am not even saying it should be banned or removed. It should just be improved to address issues like what we are talking about. People wrote this software, they can write more software to address problems. Change the goal of the software.
The tech industry is the only place I know where someone makes a product that has a drawback and then people argue that drawback cannot be corrected.
Um...
No one argued that AMP couldn't be improved. Like, not even close. I've been fairly consistently that AMP is a template that makes your website generic as fuck. Acrofales said fairly clearly that he thinks AMP just sucks.
But if a News org has a problem with their mobile site looking too generic, then maybe their Business Analysts or Marketing teams should have discussed that before they paid their web team tens of thousands of collective dollars to implement that generic design?
As a developer in the marketing agency world, AMP does fucking suck, but marketing agencies are pushing AMP, or should I say, google is making marketing agencies push AMP hard as fuck.
EPT
