2 ms·
A good point, although I read the article that this comment-chain is geared towards. Be more forthright with your condescension please ^_^. The article was put
by rotrux 9y ago
A good point, although I read the article that this comment-chain is geared towards. Be more forthright with your condescension please ^_^.
The article was put out by mozilla, so of course their stated point is to make everyone's experience better. I'm in marketing, so I tend to ignore a good portion of the text in marketing/PR-blogs such as this one.
Aside from that, I hadn't thought of this. You're right that if anything, this will increase the load-times of companies who rely on advertising revenue. Perhaps it's preparation?
- jrochkind1 9y ago> You're right that if anything, this will increase the load-times of companies who rely on advertising revenue. Perhaps it's preparation? The _intention_, if we believe the statement (I understand you may not) is actually the opposite of this. To _improve_ perceived load times (time to display/interactability) of sites that use lots and lots of tracking scripts. If a site does not use many or any tracking scripts, it actually won't effect it at all. There are sites that use lots and lots of tracking scripts, and it actually slows down UI. The intent of this change is to _speed it up_ again. If it doesn't do that, and instead makes lots of sites load more slowly to the user's perception, it will not have been succesful at it's claimed goal.
- rotrux 9y agoWell! After re-reading, you've convinced me that I misunderstood the mechanics of their change. Thank you! Hopefully HN can forgive me for learning ^_^.