4 ms·

Completely off-topic, but oh-my-god if the Guardian mobile website doesn't look so much better on a desktop browser than their non-mobile website... I thought t

by Osmium 13y ago

Completely off-topic, but oh-my-god if the Guardian mobile website doesn't look so much better on a desktop browser than their non-mobile website... I thought they'd had a redesign for a moment.

marshray 13y ago
Web site design is always on topic on HN. You are safe here.
dmiladinov 13y ago
This! A thousand times, this!
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sbjustin 13y ago
Wow. Yes! I will be adding the m from here on out.
Demiurge 13y ago
Wow, it's night and day. One is a clean usable site where I can clearly read a column of text for which this page exists. The other is a junked up ad/link/box mess and I have no idea what I'm looking at.
- untog 13y ago
  And one makes the Guardian considerably more money than the other. It's not a mystery.
  - scrumper 13y ago
    While we're off topic, let's run with that thought. What does that mean for the mobile web when the majority of their page views come from mobile? HTML ad overlays on the m site? The same descent into usability hell that the desktop has suffered, only without the possibility of ad-blocking plugins for mobile browsers? Or maybe it's 10 views a month, then you must use their dedicated app? Perhaps it'll be subscription only, through walled gardens like Newsstand? (Maybe that's even a good thing: we'll be paying directly for the content, instead of having our eyeballs sold to advertisers). People on this site are thinking about this stuff. Working on it. Some for evil, some for good. I'm curious what this'll all look like in a few years.
Amadou 13y ago
Other than the two-column design and the facebook/twitter/etc flare I don't see much difference. I actually liked the non-mobile page better because the formatting in the article was so much more clear, mostly better indentation. I did turn off requestpolicy, ghostery and noscript to check if there was additional crapola I was missing and it didn't seem all that different but I did notice 30+ cross-site requests, none of which added to the usefulness of the page.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by Osmium 13y ago

Completely off-topic, but oh-my-god if the Guardian mobile website doesn't look so much better on a desktop browser than their non-mobile website... I thought they'd had a redesign for a moment.

marshray 13y ago

Web site design is always on topic on HN. You are safe here.

dmiladinov 13y ago

This! A thousand times, this!

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

sbjustin 13y ago

Wow. Yes! I will be adding the m from here on out.

Demiurge 13y ago

Wow, it's night and day. One is a clean usable site where I can clearly read a column of text for which this page exists. The other is a junked up ad/link/box mess and I have no idea what I'm looking at.

untog 13y ago
And one makes the Guardian considerably more money than the other. It's not a mystery.
- scrumper 13y ago
  While we're off topic, let's run with that thought. What does that mean for the mobile web when the majority of their page views come from mobile? HTML ad overlays on the m site? The same descent into usability hell that the desktop has suffered, only without the possibility of ad-blocking plugins for mobile browsers? Or maybe it's 10 views a month, then you must use their dedicated app? Perhaps it'll be subscription only, through walled gardens like Newsstand? (Maybe that's even a good thing: we'll be paying directly for the content, instead of having our eyeballs sold to advertisers). People on this site are thinking about this stuff. Working on it. Some for evil, some for good. I'm curious what this'll all look like in a few years.

Amadou 13y ago

Other than the two-column design and the facebook/twitter/etc flare I don't see much difference. I actually liked the non-mobile page better because the formatting in the article was so much more clear, mostly better indentation. I did turn off requestpolicy, ghostery and noscript to check if there was additional crapola I was missing and it didn't seem all that different but I did notice 30+ cross-site requests, none of which added to the usefulness of the page.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]