4 ms·
Right, which is why I don't recommend designing by A/B testing single-variable changes in the first place. Instead of assuming that your site does better with e
by ianstormtaylor 13y ago
Right, which is why I don't recommend designing by A/B testing single-variable changes in the first place. Instead of assuming that your site does better with extremely long lines of tiny type, even thought that goes against pretty much every typographer's recommendation, I'd assume that you started at a small local maximum if the results really do suggest you are best optimized.
_
/ \
/ \
you? / \
_ / \
__/ \_______/ \_______________
Another thing that came to mind: read time could actually be working against you, how do you know people are leaving because they can't read the type vs. they are leaving because it was so easy to read they finished earlier ;)
- pygy_ 13y agoHis definition of conversion is unusual (compared to what we usually see on HN). His articles are long, and take more than 40 seconds to read.
- gwern 13y agoRight. It's impossible to genuinely read any page on my site in <40 seconds, so I can treat an increase in >40seconders as an increase in reading time.
- gwern 13y ago> Instead of assuming that your site does better with extremely long lines of tiny type, even thought that goes against pretty much every typographer's recommendation It's not really an assumption though, I've already looked at long lines with the `max-width` variable, and the very wide/long versions performed pretty well; see http://www.gwern.net/AB%20testing#max-width http://www.gwern.net/AB%20testing#max-width & http://www.gwern.net/AB%20testing#max-width-redux http://www.gwern.net/AB%20testing#max-width-redux
- ianstormtaylor 13y agoThat was a single-variable test, right? I just talked about that...