That's right - if you say type in a URL that would have been blocked, AdBlock for Chrome won't do anything. It can only block resources requested by the page (before they download). http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=35897
Google would argue that the fade in speeds up user interaction in the vast majority of cases by not distracting users from the search box. Actually, they did argue that. And their justification did not come from a marketing VP like you imagine but from benchmarking real users. It's as if they consider actual results a better metric than childish rants posted on a forum somewhere.
I was about to disagree with you, but Wikipedia tells me I'm confusing "free market" with "perfect market". A free market is defined by having no government regulation, while a perfect market has qualities that seem to necessitate regulation to prevent monopolies.
I guess I shouldn't use the phrase "free market" positively any more, since it's the exact opposite of what I want.
The only dividents[sic] to be had from this project appear to be political.
On the contrary, it lowers the barrier to entry in getting users to open Google Web applications using a functional, fast, and compliant browser.
Exactly. This plugin was made for developers. If I wanted to develop an HTML5 app using the canvas tag or whatever, previously I would have needed to turn IE users away.
site: "Sorry, this doesn't work in Internet Explorer."
user: "What's Internet Explorer?"
Now I can say,
site: "Please install this Google plugin made by Google."
user: *click click click click*
It's not perfect, but it's better than denying users outright or scrapping an otherwise fine idea for a webapp.
Slashdot Mirror
That's right - if you say type in a URL that would have been blocked, AdBlock for Chrome won't do anything. It can only block resources requested by the page (before they download). http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=35897
Google would argue that the fade in speeds up user interaction in the vast majority of cases by not distracting users from the search box. Actually, they did argue that. And their justification did not come from a marketing VP like you imagine but from benchmarking real users. It's as if they consider actual results a better metric than childish rants posted on a forum somewhere.
I was about to disagree with you, but Wikipedia tells me I'm confusing "free market" with "perfect market". A free market is defined by having no government regulation, while a perfect market has qualities that seem to necessitate regulation to prevent monopolies.
I guess I shouldn't use the phrase "free market" positively any more, since it's the exact opposite of what I want.
The only dividents[sic] to be had from this project appear to be political.
On the contrary, it lowers the barrier to entry in getting users to open Google Web applications using a functional, fast, and compliant browser.
Exactly. This plugin was made for developers. If I wanted to develop an HTML5 app using the canvas tag or whatever, previously I would have needed to turn IE users away.
site: "Sorry, this doesn't work in Internet Explorer."
user: "What's Internet Explorer?"
Now I can say,
site: "Please install this Google plugin made by Google."
user: *click click click click*
It's not perfect, but it's better than denying users outright or scrapping an otherwise fine idea for a webapp.