3 ms·

I, personally, hate websites that serve different content based on what device I'm using. It makes it difficult to customize a device to view things the way I w

I, personally, hate websites that serve different content based on what device I'm using. It makes it difficult to customize a device to view things the way I want to view them. All of the changes to navigation and features makes it difficult to navigate and use the site. I do think there could be a case made for Google abusing their power here but frankly I'm on their side for this: one site, one representation. If you want a lighter load for mobile users, provide a lighter version for every user. If you want to keep features available, allow users to opt-in or out to such features.

xvector 8y ago
> I do think there could be a case made for Google abusing their power here Which is the concern here. Abuse of power in order to push your own agenda could just as easily turn into abuse of power to push an agenda you despise.
unethical_ban 8y ago
I think you're ignoring the capabilities and UX that desktop can provide vs. mobile. You're essentially asking for what Ubuntu did with Unity and GNOME with... well, GNOME, in that they're shoehorning a mobile/touch UX into a desktop. That isn't always the way to go.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  I mean, an even worse example of that would be Windows 8. Metro everywhere was a colossal failure. Hence the dialing back for Windows 10. There's nothing wrong with having different mobile and desktop experiences. Just make sure they have feature parity and behave in similar, expected ways.
ehnto 8y ago
I agree it's not ideal to have different experiences. But this wouldn't be true if Google didn't start imposing AMP through their influence. This has been an elaborate attempt to push everyone into a requirements system so that they can control how websites are built. Like an app store policy for websites. That's bad news, because their influence is real, businesses rely on search traffic to exist, and will have no choice but to comply.
- khacking 8y ago
  I think there should be more regulation around such a large gatekeeper. It's a bad state of affairs where small businesses are beholden to one opaque company. Even more worrying if the small company offers a competitive product to one of Google/Alphabet's.
RandomInteger4 8y ago
Are you saying you're opposed to responsive design?
- coldtea 8y ago
  Well, I am. We got "responsive design" when we need it least: the moment we have mobile devices capable to display desktop pages just fine, large screen, and tap to zoom-in/out to any area of interest...
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    I feel like we live in different universes; every time I use a desktop site on mobile, the touch targets are awful and it's hard to see content.
- inetknght 8y ago
  Yes. Moving content around when I resize my window is the opposite of functional. I don't get more screen real estate so websites can have bigger and more fancy text or pictures. I get more screen real estate because I keep things small and the screen full of information; high information density. I resize things often as they get moved around on my screen and resizing the window will move elements around nearly every time. It's the same any time screen rotation is enabled: accidentally tilt or partially rotate the device and then everything resizes and moves around. It's very jarring. There's also the sites that take control of my keys so I can't use them to navigate; or those that disable operating system features such as copy and paste. Both of those are the opposite of useful. If you want more trust: build and sign a native application, and don't be overly generous on the permissions you request. There's no reason a message app needs audio permission until the moment I intentionally start or join a voice conversation. Same for the camera. Same for saving data to the local disk, too, really. There's definitely no reason you should need administrator permission. And that permission should be revoked when the conversation is done.
JoshMnem 8y ago
> one site, one representation. I don't think that's a good idea. "Mobile first" doesn't mean "mobile everywhere". You can use umatrix and stylus Firefox extensions to eliminate most page bloat. Firefox's reader view can give the same look to each page if that's what you want. Destroying the open WWW for the purpose of making all websites look the same on all devices doesn't seem like a good justification.

xvector 8y ago

> I do think there could be a case made for Google abusing their power here Which is the concern here. Abuse of power in order to push your own agenda could just as easily turn into abuse of power to push an agenda you despise.

unethical_ban 8y ago

I think you're ignoring the capabilities and UX that desktop can provide vs. mobile. You're essentially asking for what Ubuntu did with Unity and GNOME with... well, GNOME, in that they're shoehorning a mobile/touch UX into a desktop. That isn't always the way to go.

bobthepanda 8y ago
I mean, an even worse example of that would be Windows 8. Metro everywhere was a colossal failure. Hence the dialing back for Windows 10. There's nothing wrong with having different mobile and desktop experiences. Just make sure they have feature parity and behave in similar, expected ways.

ehnto 8y ago

I agree it's not ideal to have different experiences. But this wouldn't be true if Google didn't start imposing AMP through their influence. This has been an elaborate attempt to push everyone into a requirements system so that they can control how websites are built. Like an app store policy for websites. That's bad news, because their influence is real, businesses rely on search traffic to exist, and will have no choice but to comply.

khacking 8y ago
I think there should be more regulation around such a large gatekeeper. It's a bad state of affairs where small businesses are beholden to one opaque company. Even more worrying if the small company offers a competitive product to one of Google/Alphabet's.

RandomInteger4 8y ago

Are you saying you're opposed to responsive design?

coldtea 8y ago
Well, I am. We got "responsive design" when we need it least: the moment we have mobile devices capable to display desktop pages just fine, large screen, and tap to zoom-in/out to any area of interest...
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  I feel like we live in different universes; every time I use a desktop site on mobile, the touch targets are awful and it's hard to see content.
inetknght 8y ago
Yes. Moving content around when I resize my window is the opposite of functional. I don't get more screen real estate so websites can have bigger and more fancy text or pictures. I get more screen real estate because I keep things small and the screen full of information; high information density. I resize things often as they get moved around on my screen and resizing the window will move elements around nearly every time. It's the same any time screen rotation is enabled: accidentally tilt or partially rotate the device and then everything resizes and moves around. It's very jarring. There's also the sites that take control of my keys so I can't use them to navigate; or those that disable operating system features such as copy and paste. Both of those are the opposite of useful. If you want more trust: build and sign a native application, and don't be overly generous on the permissions you request. There's no reason a message app needs audio permission until the moment I intentionally start or join a voice conversation. Same for the camera. Same for saving data to the local disk, too, really. There's definitely no reason you should need administrator permission. And that permission should be revoked when the conversation is done.

JoshMnem 8y ago

> one site, one representation. I don't think that's a good idea. "Mobile first" doesn't mean "mobile everywhere". You can use umatrix and stylus Firefox extensions to eliminate most page bloat. Firefox's reader view can give the same look to each page if that's what you want. Destroying the open WWW for the purpose of making all websites look the same on all devices doesn't seem like a good justification.