3 ms·

The designer isn't to blame here. Its an executive decision designed to hinder use. They dont want you doing something obvious like reading content. They wan

The designer isn't to blame here. Its an executive decision designed to hinder use. They dont want you doing something obvious like reading content. They want you looking at all the other pages they have to offer where you also cannot read content. I've found that maybe about 10% of the time trying to scroll an article into view or pinch-zoom I accidentally trigger a click on a link or ad. More clicks! More revenue! Lets keep them struggling to find content and mine all the clicks we can!

eksith 13y ago
This is true, unfortunately. I know quite a few designers who're absolutely appalled at some of the things they're asked to implement. Completely counter-productive and short-sighted. They really do browse their work on mobile so they know exactly what the end result will be.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
Yep. Another approach is the dreaded list-type articles that are almost 100% of the content for some sites. You know, articles with names like "Top 10 Cities for Techies" or whatever. Instead of putting it all one page or even using an AJAX call to retrieve each list entry, the entries each load a new page, complete with ads, etc. A lot of these are butt slow in loading just one page, but hey, they just want those clicks. So they manage to stretch one lame article into 10 page views, complete with 10x the ad revenue and 10x the latency for the reader. On mobile, this can be even more painful.
acqq 13y ago
Beautifully said binarymax: Its an executive decision designed to hinder use. They dont want you doing something obvious like reading content. They want you looking at all the other pages they have to offer where you also cannot read content. They also think: "Wouldn't the world be nicer without these people who want to read our content over the internet." And they also think "OK the guy who followed the link has an iPad so he isn't among the cheapest bastards of all those who follow links to our glorious magazine, so let's try to make them subscribe." Anybody has any statistics that supports or disproves the above ideas?
dclowd9901 13y ago
It's up to web designers/developers to take the shitty ideas of their bosses and turn them into something that is at least usable, and hopefully doesn't do evil shit. The problem is, most developers/designers get saddled with tasks like this, and they think, "I fucking hate that I even have to do this in the first place -- why would I spend another goddamn second on it?" And they leave it the shitty experience that they know their superiors will sign off on. Like any other job your results are only as good as the pride you put into it.
- psweber 13y ago
  Fixing your boss' shitty idea is an optional, difficult and mostly thankless job. Getting a boss/client that has at least minimal respect for quality design and engineering is much better for mental health.

eksith 13y ago

This is true, unfortunately. I know quite a few designers who're absolutely appalled at some of the things they're asked to implement. Completely counter-productive and short-sighted. They really do browse their work on mobile so they know exactly what the end result will be.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

Yep. Another approach is the dreaded list-type articles that are almost 100% of the content for some sites. You know, articles with names like "Top 10 Cities for Techies" or whatever. Instead of putting it all one page or even using an AJAX call to retrieve each list entry, the entries each load a new page, complete with ads, etc. A lot of these are butt slow in loading just one page, but hey, they just want those clicks. So they manage to stretch one lame article into 10 page views, complete with 10x the ad revenue and 10x the latency for the reader. On mobile, this can be even more painful.

acqq 13y ago

Beautifully said binarymax: Its an executive decision designed to hinder use. They dont want you doing something obvious like reading content. They want you looking at all the other pages they have to offer where you also cannot read content. They also think: "Wouldn't the world be nicer without these people who want to read our content over the internet." And they also think "OK the guy who followed the link has an iPad so he isn't among the cheapest bastards of all those who follow links to our glorious magazine, so let's try to make them subscribe." Anybody has any statistics that supports or disproves the above ideas?

dclowd9901 13y ago

It's up to web designers/developers to take the shitty ideas of their bosses and turn them into something that is at least usable, and hopefully doesn't do evil shit. The problem is, most developers/designers get saddled with tasks like this, and they think, "I fucking hate that I even have to do this in the first place -- why would I spend another goddamn second on it?" And they leave it the shitty experience that they know their superiors will sign off on. Like any other job your results are only as good as the pride you put into it.

psweber 13y ago
Fixing your boss' shitty idea is an optional, difficult and mostly thankless job. Getting a boss/client that has at least minimal respect for quality design and engineering is much better for mental health.