Their criteria is not "has a mobile site", their criteria is "site doesn't look like shit when rendered on a mobile device".
No, that's not their criteria either. Their criteria is that the site has to adhere to a bunch of little things, like spacing between links, button sizes, etc. None of that has much to do with whether or not the page is shitty on a mobile device.
The problem with G+, as I see it, is not it existing, but the way Google has tried to force everyone into using it. If they'd just offer it as an optional service, it'd be fine
That and the whole "real names" policy. I do believe that if Google hadn't tried forcing everyone into it, it would have been more popular.
But not with me. I used G+ for a while, but gave it up because of endless technical and usability problems.
They shouldn't get to dictate how the web works but then you basically say don't like it don't use Google... I'm confused... are sites able to chose not to use Google? What sites gets most of their traffic from a different search engine?
He's saying that if your visitors are primarily coming from search engines, then your site can ignore what search engines want without harm because being downranked by them won't hurt you. Plenty of sites get most of their visitors from regular readers rather than from search engines.
Sites are able to choose not to use Google, by the way. It just takes a small edit to your robots.txt file to get Google to completely ignore your site.
What happens when those rules begin to stray from principals fewer people agree with? Google is more or less a monopoly.
I don't think google is a monopoly -- there are lots of other search engines who drive reasonable amounts of traffic. But they are certainly the Big Dog. Nonetheless, there is a three-way symbiotic relationship here. If Google pushes so hard that sites stop caring about their google rankings, then Google's relevance will fall. If enough people find Google to suck more than the alternatives, the Google's relevance will fall.
Yes, I agree. Designers wanting complete control over the page appearance are a plague on the face of the web. Some of the blame goes to CSS as well -- at least the earlier versions of it -- as it made it extremely difficult to have multiple columns without also requiring a fixed page width.
True, but you don't have to install an app. I've only tried a small selection of those apps, but 100% of the ones I have looked at want ridiculous device permissions. That's a nonstarter.
Perhaps so, but two thoughts occur to me about this. First, there are very, very few "good" mobile sites. They do exist, but only just barely. Second, I don't trust Google as an authority on what makes a site "good" or not.
Let me backtrack a little. Not never. In the old days, websites handled this sort of thing very well -- the reflows they did were helpful and didn't break the user experience. Somewhere along the line, though, website stopped doing this well, so now reducing the window size often breaks the usability.
Slashdot has this problem, especially the beta (the last time I tried it, anyway).
This also makes it better for desktop, because if you shrink your browser window down, the content resizes and relays out, and uses alternative layouts as appropriate.
This is precisely what has made me hate "responsive design". When I resize my browser window, I never want the website layout to change because of it.
The latter makes more sense and it doesn't leave mobile users forced to use crappy websites with most of the functionality (and often content) missing.
True, but it also means that the site is more painful to use on a desktop. I have developed an intense loathing for "responsive design" over time, as I usually read websites in a relatively small window, intentionally obscuring the parts of the site that I'm not interested in at the moment.
Sites that use "responsive design" interfere with doing that in a major way. Even worse, the "response" is often to reorganize the site in a way that effectively breaks it from a usability point of view. Slashdot itself is a good example of this.
on the assumption that people searching from mobile devices would prefer mobile content.
And that's the problem. This assumption is 100% wrong for a lot of people, including myself. This action by Google will degrade, not enhance, the quality of search results for me.
It's not fear of change. It's that mobile sites offer a genuinely inferior experience. Perhaps Google's action may force mobile sites to get better, who knows? But why should I put up with using them on the vague hope that someday they will become adequate?
I don't want a separate app for every website I frequent. While they are better than mobile sites (almost anything is!), even better than that is to force the website to give me the real page, not the stupid mobile page.
This is correct. But it's still a terrible move by Google. "Mobile-friendly" sites almost universally suck, and I get a little mad every time I am sent to one.
Also, Google, for the love of god please stop modifying search result ranking based on irrelevant things like what device I'm using, what my search history is, where I am in meatspace, etc.
Microsoft has evolved so much under Satya Nadella, that a separate subsidiary is simply no longer needed.
This is far from true (or at least, there is little evidence of it). Perhaps Microsoft will become a good (or at least nonmalevolent) player in the software space eventually, but to say that it's there right now is seriously jumping the gun.
This is true, and people are getting confused (They really should call "Cyanogen OS" something else to minimize confusion). What this means to me, though, is that I have changed my mind and my next phone purchase will not be a Cyanogen-based phone after all.
Perhaps corporations can get cyanogen out of the dorm and mom's basement and get it some serious usage.
But if the path to getting "serious usage" involves having to use Microsoft apps, then I don't care. That inclusion would mean that Cyanogen is no longer acceptable to me and I need to find a different OS. If the OS isn't acceptable to me, then I couldn't care less how many other people use it.
Could we get something similar: "After downloading the code, do not remove lines 33-67 of Encrypt.c, as this will disable the legally mandated NSA back doors"
Or... do not compile this code without #defining INCLUDE_BACKDOORS as this will disable the legally mandated back doors.
Slashdot Mirror
Their criteria is not "has a mobile site", their criteria is "site doesn't look like shit when rendered on a mobile device".
No, that's not their criteria either. Their criteria is that the site has to adhere to a bunch of little things, like spacing between links, button sizes, etc. None of that has much to do with whether or not the page is shitty on a mobile device.
Because that would actually be useful.
The problem with G+, as I see it, is not it existing, but the way Google has tried to force everyone into using it. If they'd just offer it as an optional service, it'd be fine
That and the whole "real names" policy. I do believe that if Google hadn't tried forcing everyone into it, it would have been more popular.
But not with me. I used G+ for a while, but gave it up because of endless technical and usability problems.
They shouldn't get to dictate how the web works but then you basically say don't like it don't use Google... I'm confused... are sites able to chose not to use Google? What sites gets most of their traffic from a different search engine?
He's saying that if your visitors are primarily coming from search engines, then your site can ignore what search engines want without harm because being downranked by them won't hurt you. Plenty of sites get most of their visitors from regular readers rather than from search engines.
Sites are able to choose not to use Google, by the way. It just takes a small edit to your robots.txt file to get Google to completely ignore your site.
What happens when those rules begin to stray from principals fewer people agree with? Google is more or less a monopoly.
I don't think google is a monopoly -- there are lots of other search engines who drive reasonable amounts of traffic. But they are certainly the Big Dog. Nonetheless, there is a three-way symbiotic relationship here. If Google pushes so hard that sites stop caring about their google rankings, then Google's relevance will fall. If enough people find Google to suck more than the alternatives, the Google's relevance will fall.
The beta is. Or was. I haven't looked at it in quite a while.
Yes, I agree. Designers wanting complete control over the page appearance are a plague on the face of the web. Some of the blame goes to CSS as well -- at least the earlier versions of it -- as it made it extremely difficult to have multiple columns without also requiring a fixed page width.
True, but you don't have to install an app. I've only tried a small selection of those apps, but 100% of the ones I have looked at want ridiculous device permissions. That's a nonstarter.
Perhaps so, but two thoughts occur to me about this. First, there are very, very few "good" mobile sites. They do exist, but only just barely. Second, I don't trust Google as an authority on what makes a site "good" or not.
Let me backtrack a little. Not never. In the old days, websites handled this sort of thing very well -- the reflows they did were helpful and didn't break the user experience. Somewhere along the line, though, website stopped doing this well, so now reducing the window size often breaks the usability.
Slashdot has this problem, especially the beta (the last time I tried it, anyway).
This also makes it better for desktop, because if you shrink your browser window down, the content resizes and relays out, and uses alternative layouts as appropriate.
This is precisely what has made me hate "responsive design". When I resize my browser window, I never want the website layout to change because of it.
The latter makes more sense and it doesn't leave mobile users forced to use crappy websites with most of the functionality (and often content) missing.
True, but it also means that the site is more painful to use on a desktop. I have developed an intense loathing for "responsive design" over time, as I usually read websites in a relatively small window, intentionally obscuring the parts of the site that I'm not interested in at the moment.
Sites that use "responsive design" interfere with doing that in a major way. Even worse, the "response" is often to reorganize the site in a way that effectively breaks it from a usability point of view. Slashdot itself is a good example of this.
If they know what they're doing, then why has the quality of their search results been consistently falling over the past few years?
on the assumption that people searching from mobile devices would prefer mobile content.
And that's the problem. This assumption is 100% wrong for a lot of people, including myself. This action by Google will degrade, not enhance, the quality of search results for me.
I very much like this solution.
Sure, you can zoom it, but then you're changing the way the website works because you are viewing just a small part of the page through a magnifier.
Why is that a bad thing? Websites aren't holy relics whose experience must not be modified by the user.
It's not fear of change. It's that mobile sites offer a genuinely inferior experience. Perhaps Google's action may force mobile sites to get better, who knows? But why should I put up with using them on the vague hope that someday they will become adequate?
I don't want a separate app for every website I frequent. While they are better than mobile sites (almost anything is!), even better than that is to force the website to give me the real page, not the stupid mobile page.
Perhaps this is theoretically true, but I've yet to see good responsive design in practice.
Good god, no. Anything but Bing. Well, not anything, I suppose, but still.
This is correct. But it's still a terrible move by Google. "Mobile-friendly" sites almost universally suck, and I get a little mad every time I am sent to one.
Also, Google, for the love of god please stop modifying search result ranking based on irrelevant things like what device I'm using, what my search history is, where I am in meatspace, etc.
Microsoft has evolved so much under Satya Nadella, that a separate subsidiary is simply no longer needed.
This is far from true (or at least, there is little evidence of it). Perhaps Microsoft will become a good (or at least nonmalevolent) player in the software space eventually, but to say that it's there right now is seriously jumping the gun.
This is true, and people are getting confused (They really should call "Cyanogen OS" something else to minimize confusion). What this means to me, though, is that I have changed my mind and my next phone purchase will not be a Cyanogen-based phone after all.
Perhaps corporations can get cyanogen out of the dorm and mom's basement and get it some serious usage.
But if the path to getting "serious usage" involves having to use Microsoft apps, then I don't care. That inclusion would mean that Cyanogen is no longer acceptable to me and I need to find a different OS. If the OS isn't acceptable to me, then I couldn't care less how many other people use it.
May as well shoot Microsoft in the foot.
You shouldn't argue against a thing by pointing out a positive result of it.
Could we get something similar: "After downloading the code, do not remove lines 33-67 of Encrypt.c, as this will disable the legally mandated NSA back doors"
Or... do not compile this code without #defining INCLUDE_BACKDOORS as this will disable the legally mandated back doors.