It is obvious to anyone that elephants evolved form wooly mammoths
It might be obvious, but it's wrong. They both have a common ancestor, one did not evolve from the other. The same thing goes for humans and other extant apes.
I honestly thought that was GPs point. People "know" a thing, but for the wrong reasons.
Make your mind up. At first you were talking about paper mockups.
I didn't address paper mockups because an AC already had. Paper mockups would be used when they only want to test one thing that doesn't make sense to build an entire site for. It's more about measuring visual hierarchy, visibility, and clarity of interactive elements.
"Here is a paper mockup of our nav, where would you look first to find {thing}?" If the users doesn't know to click on a thing, it doesn't matter how well it works once a person clicks there. It wouldn't be effective to build an entire site for that any more than it would be to test drive every single car when the only thing you're deciding on is its exterior color.
As for A/B testing, it's going to be A=15% grey on an 85% grey background and B=15% grey with a bit of a green tinge on an 85% grey background. It's too expensive to compare much more than trivial cosmetic differences.
You're making it up as you go along.
Now who's making it up as they go along?
Of course there is a cost involved since you're developing multiple versions, but the theory is that you'll end up with a better version, so it has a high ROI.
Some ad blocking software also looks for classes, ids, or filepaths with "ad" in the string. So whatever.com/images/ad/buynow.jpg would get blocked as would whatever.com/images/buynow.jpg if it's in an element of class="ad728x90"
So, the very thing people are blocking? You don't honestly think that just because it wouldn't come from an "ad network" that people wouldn't still block it, do you?
No, I don't think it's an oversimplification. If you were paying $1K/month to host, then you were running a business, which is fine. Why didn't you go sell some ads? That's a ton of money in hosting, so that's a ton of traffic. It would have made financial sense to spend some resources on selling ads, instead of taking 5 seconds to plug in some HTML from some ad network, don't you think?
What do you mean by "selling ads" (instead of using an ad network)?
Even if you want to go with the most basic features of a browser. Rending HTML and CSS, no browser currently in existence supports all of them 100%. Therefore, Firefox (and any other browser) has a way to go
The A/B test variety is two (or more) fully functioning versions of a website.
Just because you don't like the results of a test, doesn't mean the execution is flawed.
There are variouscompanies that offer user testing online. There's also the scenario where the company calls in random people, perhaps off the street, or via their email list and brings them in to see paper/digital mockups.
Because I see the trend to add a half an inch of space around everything to make a layout suitable for... well, I don't know what actually. Not reading, that's for sure.
My bank recently changed the layout of their web pages... I used to be able to see all of my accounts on one screen. And suddenly I have to scroll the damned page to read the exact same amount of information on a 23" monitor.
I think "webmasters" just continue to have no fucking idea about readability and functionality, and instead just do what all the other idiots are doing.
Just an endless series of things in which all pieces of text get so much personal space as to be absurd.
They're all taking plays out of the same book, I just can't figure out what the hell it's supposed to be making better... well, I strongly suspect it's everyone optimizing for tablets and not caring how shitty it looks on everything else.
Or maybe they do user testing via interviews and/or giving different people different versions and it turns out the winning version is unfortunately the one you don't like.
I hope you organize all these suggestions into another area that you can refer to on your next update.
Given the large userbase of a site like this, you're going to have diametrically opposed ideas. Inevitably you'll piss off some non-zero amount of people by changing (or not changing) any given thing about this site. Those people will then fill up comments with basically "UGH they didn't listen to me, which means they didn't listen to anyone. If I had my way I'd make the perfect utopia of a site, but I won't actually do it."
Security through obscurity! Seriously though, I'm not the one that said "security depends on not having security vulnerabilities in your software to begin with."
So because the user has a flawed concept on how a thing gets funded, it shouldn't get funded? Hm this road I drive on isn't a toll road, therefore it shouldn't be paid by the government either.
-...could be as well paid by other more direct means (I do use various things as flattr, patreon, participating in crowdfunding, paying "pro access" or becoming "paid subscriber" for content that I like and/or depend on and/or would be missing if I wouldn't have access to).
it's nice that you support subscriptions, but they have issues. I have to have a subscription to every site I may stumble across now? Paying per article would probably be too small to charge to a card without more of it being in fees.
-...for a long time of history was indeed paid this way. That's the whole concept about patronage. You're a rich european nobleman or bourgeois. You pay a few artist SO THAT they can produce content.
Essentially the rich are in control of what content exists? That's a scary thought.
It's actually the only sane approach to the modern web. The web can't be "free". Someone's got to pay the bills. It either has to be ad-supported or subscription-based. Think about it: if you go subscription-based for everything you are MUCH more trackable than an ad-based web.
I'm already paying my ISP for the privilege of accessing the Internet (including the web), so why should I be expected to pay more for its content? Either by watching ads, subscribing to services, or whatever?
I already pay for my car and gas and roads (via taxes). I have to spend even more money once I get to the store? They should give me their products for free.
I run a few small-time websites that I give access to for free, and I couldn't care less about tracking, ads, or whatever (mostly because my sites are low-traffic enough that I can afford the out of pocket expenses myself).
Sure that works for low traffic websites, or if you're rich to be able to bleed money...
For bigger sites that cost more to run, ads are one way to generate revenue, so are subscriptions, but those are not the only ways to cover costs. They could also sell standard stuff like tee shirts or other tchotchkes, they could take microdonations, they could go the patreon route, and so on.
lol you expect people to voluntarily pay for a thing! Ugh, there's that stupid Wikipedia banner again. I can't wait until they leave me alone about it again (when other people, that aren't me fund it)
Ad revenue is propping up a lot of sites that have awful content (or frequently no original content at all), but inexplicably lots of traffic, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings if there were less of those around.
If the sites are so bad, why are you (or other people) visiting them, thus giving them revenue from ad impressions? If you're not going there, why do you even care they exist?
the content is free (no money payments) regardless, so your first argument doesn't particularly hold up.
The content is free (no mony payments) because you're (supposed to be) viewing ads. Take away that source of revenue, and the argument very much holds up.
I'm not blown away by that argument. I see what you mean, but I'm not morally compelled. I'm pretty sure there isn't a shadow TOS on sites saying I'm obligated to look at the ads they show me.
That means you haven't checked, and what if there were?
I would be fine if there were a browser setting "ads are being blocked" and sites could choose whether or not to provide me content.
Slashdot Mirror
By the time this is stable, no one will write programs using those Windows APIs anymore anyway.
It is obvious to anyone that elephants evolved form wooly mammoths
It might be obvious, but it's wrong. They both have a common ancestor, one did not evolve from the other. The same thing goes for humans and other extant apes.
I honestly thought that was GPs point. People "know" a thing, but for the wrong reasons.
Make your mind up. At first you were talking about paper mockups.
I didn't address paper mockups because an AC already had.
Paper mockups would be used when they only want to test one thing that doesn't make sense to build an entire site for. It's more about measuring visual hierarchy, visibility, and clarity of interactive elements.
"Here is a paper mockup of our nav, where would you look first to find {thing}?" If the users doesn't know to click on a thing, it doesn't matter how well it works once a person clicks there.
It wouldn't be effective to build an entire site for that any more than it would be to test drive every single car when the only thing you're deciding on is its exterior color.
As for A/B testing, it's going to be A=15% grey on an 85% grey background and B=15% grey with a bit of a green tinge on an 85% grey background. It's too expensive to compare much more than trivial cosmetic differences.
You're making it up as you go along.
Now who's making it up as they go along?
Of course there is a cost involved since you're developing multiple versions, but the theory is that you'll end up with a better version, so it has a high ROI.
Coincidentally when I loaded that page, it had a giant Flash ad on the right (that I didn't see due to not having Flash installed)
Well, best of luck with those ad networks. I think you'll see rates continue to drop as more and more people block that junk.
and the number of websites too, unless paywalls I suppose.
By now, you've hopefully learned that your idea of "selling ads" wouldn't work either.
Some ad blocking software also looks for classes, ids, or filepaths with "ad" in the string. So whatever.com/images/ad/buynow.jpg would get blocked as would whatever.com/images/buynow.jpg if it's in an element of class="ad728x90"
So, the very thing people are blocking? You don't honestly think that just because it wouldn't come from an "ad network" that people wouldn't still block it, do you?
No, I don't think it's an oversimplification. If you were paying $1K/month to host, then you were running a business, which is fine. Why didn't you go sell some ads? That's a ton of money in hosting, so that's a ton of traffic. It would have made financial sense to spend some resources on selling ads, instead of taking 5 seconds to plug in some HTML from some ad network, don't you think?
What do you mean by "selling ads" (instead of using an ad network)?
Even if you want to go with the most basic features of a browser. Rending HTML and CSS, no browser currently in existence supports all of them 100%. Therefore, Firefox (and any other browser) has a way to go
The A/B test variety is two (or more) fully functioning versions of a website. Just because you don't like the results of a test, doesn't mean the execution is flawed.
There are various companies that offer user testing online. There's also the scenario where the company calls in random people, perhaps off the street, or via their email list and brings them in to see paper/digital mockups.
Did we mention the whitespace?
Because I see the trend to add a half an inch of space around everything to make a layout suitable for ... well, I don't know what actually. Not reading, that's for sure.
My bank recently changed the layout of their web pages ... I used to be able to see all of my accounts on one screen. And suddenly I have to scroll the damned page to read the exact same amount of information on a 23" monitor.
I think "webmasters" just continue to have no fucking idea about readability and functionality, and instead just do what all the other idiots are doing.
Just an endless series of things in which all pieces of text get so much personal space as to be absurd.
They're all taking plays out of the same book, I just can't figure out what the hell it's supposed to be making better ... well, I strongly suspect it's everyone optimizing for tablets and not caring how shitty it looks on everything else.
Or maybe they do user testing via interviews and/or giving different people different versions and it turns out the winning version is unfortunately the one you don't like.
I hope you organize all these suggestions into another area that you can refer to on your next update.
Given the large userbase of a site like this, you're going to have diametrically opposed ideas. Inevitably you'll piss off some non-zero amount of people by changing (or not changing) any given thing about this site. Those people will then fill up comments with basically "UGH they didn't listen to me, which means they didn't listen to anyone. If I had my way I'd make the perfect utopia of a site, but I won't actually do it."
sjbe wasn't arguing whether or not the AC should be costing people money, just that AC is.
The filmmaker should have filmed them watching it, then submitted THAT film shortly afterwards.
Security through obscurity!
Seriously though, I'm not the one that said "security depends on not having security vulnerabilities in your software to begin with."
Both OpenBSD and qmail have had vulnerabilities, so I guess they're garbage too.
If there's a security fix for iOS you don't even hear about it until Apple is ready to ship on all devices they are still supporting.
no, but if there is a security vulnerability you do hear about it..
Please write something more complicated than "Hello World" that has no vulnerabilities. Also it must be invulnerable to unknown future attack vectors.
- ...could be as well paid by other more direct means (I do use various things as flattr, patreon, participating in crowdfunding, paying "pro access" or becoming "paid subscriber" for content that I like and/or depend on and/or would be missing if I wouldn't have access to).
it's nice that you support subscriptions, but they have issues. I have to have a subscription to every site I may stumble across now? Paying per article would probably be too small to charge to a card without more of it being in fees.
- ...for a long time of history was indeed paid this way. That's the whole concept about patronage. You're a rich european nobleman or bourgeois. You pay a few artist SO THAT they can produce content.
Essentially the rich are in control of what content exists? That's a scary thought.
Firefox for iOS doesn't use Gecko either.
It's actually the only sane approach to the modern web. The web can't be "free". Someone's got to pay the bills. It either has to be ad-supported or subscription-based. Think about it: if you go subscription-based for everything you are MUCH more trackable than an ad-based web.
I'm already paying my ISP for the privilege of accessing the Internet (including the web), so why should I be expected to pay more for its content? Either by watching ads, subscribing to services, or whatever?
I already pay for my car and gas and roads (via taxes). I have to spend even more money once I get to the store? They should give me their products for free.
I run a few small-time websites that I give access to for free, and I couldn't care less about tracking, ads, or whatever (mostly because my sites are low-traffic enough that I can afford the out of pocket expenses myself).
Sure that works for low traffic websites, or if you're rich to be able to bleed money...
For bigger sites that cost more to run, ads are one way to generate revenue, so are subscriptions, but those are not the only ways to cover costs. They could also sell standard stuff like tee shirts or other tchotchkes, they could take microdonations, they could go the patreon route, and so on.
lol you expect people to voluntarily pay for a thing! Ugh, there's that stupid Wikipedia banner again. I can't wait until they leave me alone about it again (when other people, that aren't me fund it)
Ad revenue is propping up a lot of sites that have awful content (or frequently no original content at all), but inexplicably lots of traffic, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings if there were less of those around.
If the sites are so bad, why are you (or other people) visiting them, thus giving them revenue from ad impressions? If you're not going there, why do you even care they exist?
Funny how you can the GP both bitch, but about opposite scenarios.
New engine? That's bad because it means more testing
Existing engine? That's bad because monoculture.
For it to be available on iOS, Gecko is not a choice.
the content is free (no money payments) regardless, so your first argument doesn't particularly hold up.
The content is free (no mony payments) because you're (supposed to be) viewing ads. Take away that source of revenue, and the argument very much holds up.
I'm not blown away by that argument. I see what you mean, but I'm not morally compelled. I'm pretty sure there isn't a shadow TOS on sites saying I'm obligated to look at the ads they show me.
That means you haven't checked, and what if there were?
I would be fine if there were a browser setting "ads are being blocked" and sites could choose whether or not to provide me content.
Well, at least you support Adblocking blocking, not everyone feels that way
Somebody needs to come up with a holistic solution in which both providers and consumers are satisfied.
When self-entitled consumers want everything for free, what possible solution could there be?