Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Web Designer (2013)

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 153 posts

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#141

Post by NoGravitas »

username223 wrote: post #125
shostack wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The negativity is really uncalled for. You could simply say "I don't understand, and haven't bothered to Google for 5 seconds what some of these confusing terms mean--can someone please clarify?" This stuff is all geared at advertisers who want better tools for designing ads and landing pages, and publishers who want to create ad supported sites more easily. So they are using industry jargon that people in the space…

It's pretty clear what "viewability" means, and why people like you want it. It's also unclear to me that you should be allowed to have it. The reason most mail clients don't load remote content by default is to prevent spammers/marketers from getting "viewability" information. It's sort of a bummer that Google is apparently trying to push it into the HTML spec.

I normally use Firefox, but is there a way of blocking this on the occasions I use Chrome?

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#142

Post by logicallee »

shortformblog wrote: post #139
logicallee wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I'm just asking whether you never say "ads" at all? (Just like a programmer wouldn't use the term, say, "Electronic computer program." Like a programmer wouldn't say to another programmer, "I just have to write a quick electronic computer program".) You guys didn't use "ads" at all? Or did you use them interchangeably?

The thing is, though, "creatives" don't always mean "ads" in this sector. "Creatives" can mean articles, or infographics, or illustrations. It basically draws attention to the fact that an "idea person" created the item. Limiting it to "ads" is a very narrow definition. You're overthinking it. It's not akin to saying "electronic computer program"; it's akin to a programmer saying "code" as opposed to "software" or "a…

Oh, I thought where you wrote,

>I work in marketing, "creative" is used for pretty much any kind of ad/marketing product while in the production process.

that it was limited to ads. I didn't realize it would also be used for other things.

> the "ad" is in reference to both the creative element on its own and the mechanism that puts it there.

This is interesting, thanks. But what I was trying to get at, is to make sure you guys aren't confusing each other, are you careful to use 'creative' instead of 'ad' (since the latter can include the mechanism)? Or is this not a distinction you're careful about?

I'll give you an example - programmers are careful to say "binary" or "executable" if they want to talk about the program as compiled as opposed to as written (source code).

so is "creative" also something that you would use to be careful to distinguish the "creative element on its own" as opposed to the mechanism?

It sounds like your answer is yes, that's correct - I'd just like to get a confirmation.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#143

Post by logicallee »

dannypgh wrote: post #130
logicallee wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only clicked through due to your comment, I wanted to see what you were talking about. You weren't kidding! I think I handle marketing speak pretty okay, but this: >Build beautiful HTML5 creative with ease. creative what - repeated later, "However, even though the amount of mobile and tablet work is expected to increase, cross-screen creative can be difficult to adopt". This just hurts so much. They don't want to c…

"Creative" is a well established commonly used term from the publidging and advertising worlds. Definition #2 at https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/creative#Noun

Your definition defines it as an uncountable noun (like bread - a slice of bread - a loaf of bread, not "give me two breads").

But below in this thread I asked for example usages and the person I asked said:

>"We have to work on the creatives to show to the client next week."

That does not match the definition you just linked.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/creative#Noun

it says "creatives" are people "some of the creative" (and the like) would be the things. It explicitly calls it uncountable in that definition. So does the wiktionary entry need expnasion, or was the example usage I received, wrong?

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#144

Post by cbr »

logicallee wrote: post #126
cbr wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That creative hasn't been performing well, regardless of channel." "Our creative review process is taking too long." "Can you pull all the ads for that creative?" "How good the creative is matters a lot more than how you deliver it." (I haven't worked in ads since 2012, though, so my memory of the jargon may be off.)

Thanks. So what is the meaning of your third example? It's distinct from "Can you pull that creative"? In other words what is an "ad for a creative", as that is your third sentence? The others are clear.

"Can you pull that creative?" would mean basically the same thing, and is probably what someone would say. I included "ads for" to try and clarify that the actual things you're taking down are the ads.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#145

Post by chickenfries »

logicallee wrote: post #142
shortformblog wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, though, "creatives" don't always mean "ads" in this sector. "Creatives" can mean articles, or infographics, or illustrations. It basically draws attention to the fact that an "idea person" created the item. Limiting it to "ads" is a very narrow definition. You're overthinking it. It's not akin to saying "electronic computer program"; it's akin to a programmer saying "code" as opposed to "software" or "a…

Oh, I thought where you wrote, >I work in marketing, "creative" is used for pretty much any kind of ad/marketing product while in the production process. that it was limited to ads. I didn't realize it would also be used for other things. > the "ad" is in reference to both the creative element on its own and the mechanism that puts it there. This is interesting, thanks. But what I was trying to get at, is to make sur…

Not OP but yes, the creative refers to something like a jpg or a video. The creative could be used in an ad, or a blog post, or an email, etc.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#146

Post by shortformblog »

logicallee wrote: post #142
shortformblog wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, though, "creatives" don't always mean "ads" in this sector. "Creatives" can mean articles, or infographics, or illustrations. It basically draws attention to the fact that an "idea person" created the item. Limiting it to "ads" is a very narrow definition. You're overthinking it. It's not akin to saying "electronic computer program"; it's akin to a programmer saying "code" as opposed to "software" or "a…

Oh, I thought where you wrote, >I work in marketing, "creative" is used for pretty much any kind of ad/marketing product while in the production process. that it was limited to ads. I didn't realize it would also be used for other things. > the "ad" is in reference to both the creative element on its own and the mechanism that puts it there. This is interesting, thanks. But what I was trying to get at, is to make sur…

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Thanks.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#147

Post by pcr0 »

tluyben2 wrote: post #40
pcr0 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bunch of reasons, including lack of market, complexity of today's web. They aren't entirely gone though, this was posted to HN a while ago: https://preview.webflow.com/preview/flexbox-game?preview=d1a... It's a game in their editor that teaches you flexbox.

Complexity? Web apps are often complex yes but web pages? Even the Webflow homepage/marketing pages look identical to every web site posted here. So the lack of market yes; people take a template/code and change the content. Not sure if web apps were ever a good fit for tools like this as that is more like a full IDE as it would need coding as well to make sense. At least allow to specify data structures as in and ou…

Considering even web pages today though, it's not often I want to build everything from scratch using just HTML. Rather I want to be able to drag and drop bootstrap/foundation/material components, but since I can't I might as well just use a dumb editor and live-reload changes in my browser as WYISWYG isn't working for me anymore. And I agree, WYISWYG editors fall far behind IDEs and text editors when it comes to the code.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#148

Post by tribby »

pavlov wrote: post #108
tribby wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? we don't. webflow[0] is the best I've seen. there's an OSS clone called grapejs[1], but it's still very alpha. one reason we don't see greater adoption is that WYSIWYG editors for the web occupy a sort of middle ground between template-based hosts like squarespace, weebly, etc, and opinionated low-barr…

...I don't think WYSIWYG will return in a large way until these editors begin doing "real" front-end lifting -- i.e., "drag and drop this react/vue/whatever component within a grid, without having to know what react/vue/whatever is." React Studio is trying to do that: https://reactstudio.com

interesting! I don't use WYSIWYG myself, but I'll look forward to the product launch. seems like this would pair especially well with react native.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#149

Post by shostack »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #110
shostack wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The negativity is really uncalled for. You could simply say "I don't understand, and haven't bothered to Google for 5 seconds what some of these confusing terms mean--can someone please clarify?" This stuff is all geared at advertisers who want better tools for designing ads and landing pages, and publishers who want to create ad supported sites more easily. So they are using industry jargon that people in the space…

Given the current state of the web, are you sure a little negativity isn't called for?

I think the general trends we're seeing need to be course corrected, and that publishers by and large have dug their own graves.

That said, this is largely about decrapifying the web (getting rid of Flash is a good thing right?) and the parent also crapped all over a profession and industry while proving to be rather uninformed about it. So no, a little negativity isn't called for.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#150

Post by protexilu »

c-smile wrote: post #44
vcool07 wrote: post #17

Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?

Last 10 years I am in the business of making WYSIWYG editors of various kinds. Yet I am an author of BlockNote.net HTML WYSIWYG editor (it is pretty old but works up until W7). HTML/CSS WYSIWYG editing from mathematician point of view: Second main task of a browser is: by having given HTML/CSS to produce set of pixels on window's surface. On other side WYSIWYG editor is aimed to solve opposite task: from desired set…

Tme to pull out the deep neural nets! Isn't the problem that you're describing a bit like generating, say, words given an image? Sure, there are several differences, but it's an interesting problem.

Easier than caption generation? - There's only one possible outcome for HTML/CSS --> website look - And we know what this outcome is (just render the thing) - not a lot of "words" in the vocabulary... there are only so many tags and styles we can use (at most a couple hundred), with most of the complexity coming from the combinations of these elements

But in some sense, it might be a harder problem, since the idea of web development is combining these "words" in a way that makes sense. So there might be a harder-to-learn grammar.

Post reply on HN