4 ms·
Why not fixing “the moder web” then?
by StreamBright 8y ago
Why not fixing “the moder web” then?
- r3bl 8y agoBecause convincing all the website owners to do anything (even if it clearly benefits everyone) is an impossible task. See HTTPS adoption.
- radus 8y agoIsn't https over the hump in most of the world?
- StreamBright 8y agoHTTPS adoption: https://storage.googleapis.com/cdn.thenewstack.io/media/2018/04/253fa7e9-ssl.png https://storage.googleapis.com/cdn.thenewstack.io/media/2018... Great example. You just proved my point that it is possible to have positive change in large communities.
- r3bl 8y agoI'm not sure that graph shows what you think it shows. That graph shows that there's an obnoxiously large number of websites that don't support something that there's zero reason not to support. It costs $0 and takes maybe half an hour to implement, browsers are screaming "not secure" to each visitor, and one in five websites still don't support it. "Make websites faster", on top of being vague, is way more difficult to implement.
- piva00 8y ago1 in 5 NOT supporting it is much better than the opposite when I started working in the web where 90+% of websites didn't support HTTPS.
- StreamBright 8y agoWell, I like the percentages and the direction that the graph is heading.
- manigandham 8y agoYou don't have to convince anyone, it's about incentives. The article and many others have shown exactly how to do this: make the metric a big part of search rankings. If fast site performance ensures you get listed first, every site would get faster overnight.
- michaelt 8y agoGoogle can't block ads and tracking scripts in Chrome without either blocking their own, or facing (valid) claims of anti-competitive behaviour. Neither of which would get the person who did it promoted. And no attempt to fix the slowness of the modern web will succeed without blocking ads and tracking scripts. This is the downside of the dominant browser being made by and ads-and-tracking company.