3 ms·
What kills me about AMP's UX is that not only is it a dark pattern, it's not even a new dark pattern. Back, say, 10-12 years ago it used to be really common fo
by fenomas 9y ago
What kills me about AMP's UX is that not only is it a dark pattern, it's not even a new dark pattern.
Back, say, 10-12 years ago it used to be really common for sites to jigger their outgoing links, such that the target site would appear in an iframe underneath a toolbar from the original site. This was widely reviled, and mostly died out, and the fact that Google is reviving it really bothers me.
- ihsw2 9y agoHow is this a dark pattern? Sites opt into it, users get a streamlined interface for content consumption, everybody wins. The only losers in this are those seeking to "curate" the user experience (UX) on their sites, and personally I lump them in with malicious ad peddlers -- to hell with them.
- acdha 9y agoSites opt-in under heavy pressure that they'll lost placement if they don't. Users lose the ability to get the normal site rather than the AMP version when browsing on mobile devices.
- protomyth 9y agoIt is the same opt-in as mob protection: "nice search results you have there, be a shame if something dropped you to page 2"
- ihsw2 9y agoThe only way that would be accurate is if Google targeted content creators randomly for rent seeking, but the fact of the matter is Google has a vested interest in making sure their search results are compellingly useful to users. Personally I'm using Google search more because AMP makes things faster for me. It's a win-win for me.
- fenomas 9y agoSites opt in to preferential search placement. That's orthogonal to injecting a header over outgoing links being a dark UX pattern.