3 ms·
"Protect me from sites with bad UX" is a responsibility i would be surprised to see even 2% of users requested of Google. But let's pretend you are right. There
by liquidise 10y ago
"Protect me from sites with bad UX" is a responsibility i would be surprised to see even 2% of users requested of Google. But let's pretend you are right. There are a number of solutions Google could have used to combat that very issue, such as punishing sites with long load times or exorbitant number of external assets. None of them needed to involve not sending you to a website in the name of altruism.
- lloydde 10y agoI don't think Google has the usability of this correct. I don't like how awkard it feels to truly get to the article on the website and the URL. Having said that, I'm enjoying the speed and readability. Is this opt-in for the publishers? How different is this from from browser's blocking pop ups? I prefer not to using a pop up blocker, so I experience the web like the general population. But I was so sick of publishers forcing ad clicks on mobile by effectively blocking scrolling on smaller form factor devices like my iPhone SE, that I've switched to the Brave browser.
- vorpalhex 10y ago1. Lots of users care. Watch any senior citizen on a mediocre PC surf the internet for twenty minutes. 2. Google did and still does. Load times were still unacceptable across the board, usually not because they had to be but often times because the people running the websites don't care enough to. Same as for HTTPS. 3. AMP is a more drastic reaction. It appears to be working. That being said, I would like to see AMP become enacted only on sites that do actually take a long while to load. At the same time, AMP is still opt in. This isn't forced altruism, but you can play nicely or be lowered in rankings in response. -- edited for formatting