4 ms·

Would you agree that the completely standards compliant, well-understood-by-users back button already replicates that behavior perfectly? Why does the close but

Would you agree that the completely standards compliant, well-understood-by-users back button already replicates that behavior perfectly? Why does the close button have to have a different icon for the exact same purpose, if not to deceive?

mthoms 10y ago
Please address this question @cramforce. Why are you introducing a new and totally unnecessary display element when the back button is built right in to the browser and everyone already knows how it works? No matter how hard I try, I can't think of any good reason for this banner. But hey, to the right of that X there sure is a lot of room for placing an adsense ad! What a strange co-incidence.
- cramforce 10y ago
  The banner is needed to show the logical origin, given that the browser is still on Google.com and the article is shown in a iframe (to enable pre-rendering). Our native apps do not have this constraint and thus don't have the extra bar. I can't give you a 100% reason for the X. I know multiple UI versions were tested and this did well.
  - mthoms 10y ago
    >to show the logical origin, given that the browser is still on Google.com and the article is shown in a iframe What an amazing coincidence that this great new tech requires users to remain on google.com "for technical reasons".
    - cramforce 10y ago
      If you have an alternative implementation strategy that enables pre-rendering and swiping while showing the source article origin I am all ears. We can do it in our native apps, and we do.
      - mthoms 10y ago
        I'm not familiar yet with the pre-rendering functionality so I can't comment except to ask - why are you making this contentious feature a requirement of using AMP? Why not allow publishers to opt out of the Google CDN + pre-rendering but still retain all the other benefits of AMP? This type of progressive enhancement would likely benefit more sites/users instead of an all-or-nothing approach.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

mthoms 10y ago

Please address this question @cramforce. Why are you introducing a new and totally unnecessary display element when the back button is built right in to the browser and everyone already knows how it works? No matter how hard I try, I can't think of any good reason for this banner. But hey, to the right of that X there sure is a lot of room for placing an adsense ad! What a strange co-incidence.

cramforce 10y ago
The banner is needed to show the logical origin, given that the browser is still on Google.com and the article is shown in a iframe (to enable pre-rendering). Our native apps do not have this constraint and thus don't have the extra bar. I can't give you a 100% reason for the X. I know multiple UI versions were tested and this did well.
- mthoms 10y ago
  >to show the logical origin, given that the browser is still on Google.com and the article is shown in a iframe What an amazing coincidence that this great new tech requires users to remain on google.com "for technical reasons".
  - cramforce 10y ago
    If you have an alternative implementation strategy that enables pre-rendering and swiping while showing the source article origin I am all ears. We can do it in our native apps, and we do.
    - mthoms 10y ago
      I'm not familiar yet with the pre-rendering functionality so I can't comment except to ask - why are you making this contentious feature a requirement of using AMP? Why not allow publishers to opt out of the Google CDN + pre-rendering but still retain all the other benefits of AMP? This type of progressive enhancement would likely benefit more sites/users instead of an all-or-nothing approach.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]