Slashdot Mirror
Google Tests Ads That Load Faster and Use Less Power (bbc.co.uk)
Slashdot reader Big Hairy Ian quotes a report from the BBC: Google says it has found a way to make ads load faster on web pages viewed on smartphones and tablets. The company said the ads would also be less taxing on the handsets' processors, meaning their batteries should last longer. The technique is based on work it has already done to make news publishers' articles load more quickly. But it is still in development, and one expert said Google still had questions to answer. The California-based company's online advertising revenue totalled $67.4 billion last year...
The technique limits the scope of JavaScript, and "provides its own activity measurement tools, which are said to be much more efficient," according to article. A Google software engineer explains that this technique "only animates things that are visible on the screen," and throttles animation to fewer frames per second for weaker devices -- or disables the animations altogether. "This ensures that every device gets the best experience it can deliver and makes sure that ads cannot have a negative impact on important aspects of the user experience such as scrolling."
The technique limits the scope of JavaScript, and "provides its own activity measurement tools, which are said to be much more efficient," according to article. A Google software engineer explains that this technique "only animates things that are visible on the screen," and throttles animation to fewer frames per second for weaker devices -- or disables the animations altogether. "This ensures that every device gets the best experience it can deliver and makes sure that ads cannot have a negative impact on important aspects of the user experience such as scrolling."
apk is clearly wrong on this.
with uBlock origin
A Google software engineer explains that this technique "only animates things that are visible on the screen," and throttles animation to fewer frames per second for weaker devices -- or disables the animations altogether.
Here's an idea - how about disabling animation by default, and regardless of device? Annoying animated ads are what drove me to completely block them in the first place.
#DeleteChrome
That would make batteries last much longer.
Something has seriously gone off the rails when an ad/image designer either a) cares directly, and/or b) has insight into device power management and usage.
You're doing it wrong.
How about devices, firmware writers, OS writers, library writers, and application writers (browsers in this case) focus on the power management and we keep remote content creators out of the loop. If you need end-to-end awareness of things like this, it's a sign that your different layers are unable to make sane design choices or write sane platform specifications internally. It's also a sign that you don't care about leaking data far and wide to things that should have no need for that info. (cf. Uber and pricing changes when your battery is low.)
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
My battery lasts fine, it's bandwidth that bothers me, reduce that instead.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Oh boy, faster ads, just what I've ALWAYS wanted!!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
...only it was in the form of text only ads? I wish ad companies would do text only with a "Click here to learn more about Brand X", but this probaly won't attract the dullards who need shiny, sometimes flashing/seizure inducing ads to get the 2 brain cells they have to rub together. :| (another reason ads on tv are typicaly 30 seconds long when you think they should not have to be longer than 5, maybe 10 seconds long to convey the same message.)
I do admit, this new thing sounds pretty impressive from a tech/programming standpoint
Will you entertain the idea that ad networks are potential vectors for malware?
If you want me to care about "content creators", you're going to have to call them something other than "content creators". I find that appellation irritating in the extreme. It says absolutely nothing about what they've done to deserve my money.
I mean, I work very hard on adding value to Slashdot with my shitty comments, so I am also a "content creator". So pay me my money, motherfucker. GIVE ME MY GODDAMN MONEY.
https://youtu.be/0N4b2dmLZII
You are welcome on my lawn.
"By blocking the only remaining avenue for content creators to earn a living from their extremely hard work, you are helping put them out of business"
I'm more than happy to put sites that depend solely on advertising derived from third-party ad-feed companies out of business. These, more than any other cause, are the monstrosities that have ruined the web experience for so many people and given any form of advertising a bad name.
Of course they won't. And until the ad industry gets their shit together then this current scenario won't change and more people will move to block ads. They did this themselves and are doubling down on stupid instead of going "why are people blocking ads..." Oh right, because we fucked up and allow malware authors to ride along on our networks and screw people over.
Sorry ad people, but using adblockers in some form is basic malware protection these days.
Om, nomnomnom...
O'Really?
When somebody puts a site on the web they are making it publicly available to anybody that wants to connect to it. Trying to to then impose constraints on how people access that content *after making it available* has no moral validity at all. The web was not invented to be "monetised", and fuck corporate apologists like you would try to rewrite history to make it so.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
My worry is that it becomes an arms race. Advertisers looking for ever more intrusive and annoying ways to bypass ad-blocking. We have already seen attempts to detect ad blockers, and then ad blockers blocking the ad blocker blockers in response.
In that sense maybe a standard API for adverts, that is extremely limiting and enforces good behaviour in exchange for not getting blocked, might be a good solution. Static images, maximum file size, no javascript, no ping backs, no cookies, maximum 10% of the page, served from the same domain as the rest of the content. That removes most of the scope for malware and the stuff that slows down loading and wastes battery.
I'd have to give it a trial run, but I'd consider lowering my ad-blocking shields enough to allow that through.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Uhm.. quality websites with well researched articles are generally subscription based
:
Which means readers end up turned away when they try to read one article that was found through a search engine or shared through social media. People have shown themselves unwilling to buy a whole month's worth of access just to read one article.