4 ms·

You added an obscure icon that when tapped reveals the link, which then must be also be tapped. That's a little more obtuse and undiscoverable than 'added that

You added an obscure icon that when tapped reveals the link, which then must be also be tapped. That's a little more obtuse and undiscoverable than 'added that button'. The fact that people here on HN are still requesting it says it's far from well implemented - I wouldn't have known about it if I hadn't read it somewhere when you added it. The more conspiratorial among us probably assume that implementing it poorly is intentional.

cramforce 10y ago
It'll be replaced with a standard share button once navigator.share() API launches.
- shostack 10y ago
  Given that you are the tech lead on AMP at Google, maybe you can clarify a bit on this...but why the decision to group this interaction under Sharing? It seems like people are trying to just visit the original site, not share it, and one of the big criticisms has been that this is buried. Presumably putting it under Sharing is also a bit confusing because to many, "sharing" implies sending content to someone which describes a very different interaction than opening the original page. Is it because "Sharing" in this case us meant to imply pushing the content to another medium (such as an external browser) vs. just the implied meaning of "sharing with another person?" I'd love any context you can share from internal discussions around how prominent to make that functionality. I think it is hard to deny that Google benefits from it being harder to find, which is where the criticism from the parent is likely coming from.
  - cramforce 10y ago
    Only a tiny percentage of users wants to use the "click through to original" feature. Sharing is a major use case that strongly benefits publisher. In the end one has to make trade offs what to make prominent in a UI.
    - thescribe 10y ago
      As a user who frequently wants to change the rendering, I don't think I would have ever thought to look under share. I associate the 'share' section with tracking code and buttons for social networks.
    - chickenfries 10y ago
      And yet, it's what a search engine is supposed to do: link you to someone else's site.

cramforce 10y ago

It'll be replaced with a standard share button once navigator.share() API launches.

shostack 10y ago
Given that you are the tech lead on AMP at Google, maybe you can clarify a bit on this...but why the decision to group this interaction under Sharing? It seems like people are trying to just visit the original site, not share it, and one of the big criticisms has been that this is buried. Presumably putting it under Sharing is also a bit confusing because to many, "sharing" implies sending content to someone which describes a very different interaction than opening the original page. Is it because "Sharing" in this case us meant to imply pushing the content to another medium (such as an external browser) vs. just the implied meaning of "sharing with another person?" I'd love any context you can share from internal discussions around how prominent to make that functionality. I think it is hard to deny that Google benefits from it being harder to find, which is where the criticism from the parent is likely coming from.
- cramforce 10y ago
  Only a tiny percentage of users wants to use the "click through to original" feature. Sharing is a major use case that strongly benefits publisher. In the end one has to make trade offs what to make prominent in a UI.
  - thescribe 10y ago
    As a user who frequently wants to change the rendering, I don't think I would have ever thought to look under share. I associate the 'share' section with tracking code and buttons for social networks.
  - chickenfries 10y ago
    And yet, it's what a search engine is supposed to do: link you to someone else's site.