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

Google launches new “portal” HTML element

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 265 posts

Re: Google launches new “portal” HTML element

#91

Post by max76 »

config_yml wrote: post #25
verisimilitudes wrote: post #22

>Google engineers hope that their new Portals technology will take over the web and become the standard way in which websites transition between links. This is marketed as being similar to the iframe tag, but it's really an attack on the a tag.

Yes, with the benefit that the site which opened the portal (or link) still has control over the target. Sounds fishy and they’re trying to project this under a UX umbrella.

Sure, so now Google will have an easier time following your around after you visit their search page. All results will open portals.

Re: Google launches new “portal” HTML element

#92

Post by buzzert »

smacktoward wrote: post #67
rahuldottech wrote: post #57

> portals can be pre-loaded while the user scrolls through a page Let's be real here. This can already be done though "prefetch" and "preload" [0]. This is just Google introducing more pointless tech that will make webpages clunkier for no good reason. Honestly, I can't think of a single purpose this serves that isn't already fulfilled by existing web tech. [0]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/49491193/how-can-i-…

It's not pointless at all. It makes the Web platform more complicated to implement, which, as the company that owns the leading browser, is in Google's interest. The more complicated the platform becomes, the harder and more expensive it will be for any potential competitors to ship a product that can challenge Chrome.

More importantly, as it seems to require an implementation of native UI and not just rendering, it will harm browsers that are currently Chromium based.

Re: Google launches new “portal” HTML element

#93

Post by keiru »

JoshMnem wrote: post #86

It's going to hurt small sites the most, because sources of traffic like Google, Facebook, and other large sites will eventually stop linking to websites, and load them as previews in frames ("portals") instead. "No other browser vendor has expressed interest in supporting the Portals" -- but Google is releasing it in Chrome anyway. It changes the fundamental nature of the WWW as linked documents. Embrace, Extend, Ex…

In what way loading a site on a portal would be different to loading it on the main window? Portals sound like just a technical UX solution, but would still count as site traffic.

Re: Google launches new “portal” HTML element

#95

Post by joshuamorton »

eterm wrote: post #69
joshuamorton wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how modern web standards are done. If people like it, other browsers will adopt it and then the standard will too. If people don't, they won't. But every browser runs nonstandard features as part of experiments to implement new things. One way of looking at it is that the standardization process is "propose and implement whatever you want, but it doesn't become a standard until another browser implements it an…

No, given chrome's market share other browsers are forced to implement it or people will consider those browsers broken. Google are now where microsoft were when they launched IE6, adding features as they see pleased to support their own products and revenue. Back then the web population was savvy and not so reliant on microsoft that they could jump to firebird/firefox/opera when things got really bad. The modern web…

> The modern web users don't have that option because google are far more dominant now than microsoft ever was.

At peak (in ~2003-2005) IE had over 90% of global browser market share. Chrome on desktop has between 60 and 70, and afaik less on mobile, and less in the US. So, no.

> That doesn't happen now, OSes "just work" and people aren't changing their browser.

Given that chrome doesn't come on any popular desktop OS by default, this seems unlikely. If people weren't changing their browser, Safari, FF, or Edge would be the most popular due to coming by default on OSX, most linux distros, and Windows by default. (how popular is CrOS?)

> No, given chrome's market share other browsers are forced to implement it or people will consider those browsers broken.

There's a pretty decent history of this not happening.

I also don't really think your idea of how the web was used is a true reflection of reality. I was an elementary school kid back in 2002 and was using netscape and IE 4? 5? at the time, in school. I certainly had no clue how to jump to firefox or opera, nor did I know how to re-install the OS. Nor did my teachers.

I don't think the average web user back then was as savvy as you're thinking. Perhaps the average web user you hung around was, but that's just your social circles.

Re: Google launches new “portal” HTML element

#96

Post by Ajedi32 »

mysterydip wrote: post #81
skymt wrote: post #60

Am I reading this wrong, or is Google pushing a fairly complex element with substantial security considerations into HTML exclusively to solve their UX problems with AMP and the pre-load search carousel? Like this seems like it would be a fair amount of work for browsers to implement, and Google is the only party who would benefit.

Isn't this why we have the W3C, so standards don't get made unless multiple people benefit? This seems like Microsoft with IE6 all over again.

No, the purpose of the W3C is to make sure we don't end up with multiple slightly different, mutually incompatible variations of the same thing. It's not meant to be a gatekeeper for new features.

That said, Portals _are_ going through the normal W3C process for experimental features via the Web Incubator Community Group: https://wicg.github.io/portals/

Re: Google launches new “portal” HTML element

#97

Post by Ajedi32 »

ccnafr wrote: post #75
skymt wrote: post #60

Am I reading this wrong, or is Google pushing a fairly complex element with substantial security considerations into HTML exclusively to solve their UX problems with AMP and the pre-load search carousel? Like this seems like it would be a fair amount of work for browsers to implement, and Google is the only party who would benefit.

No, you're right. Portal is effectively iframe without all the security protections.

It's kinda the opposite actually. iframes didn't provide sufficient security to do the sort of things Google wanted to be able to do with them, so they had to design a new standard with better protections: https://github.com/WICG/portals/blob/master/explainer.md#why...

Re: Google launches new “portal” HTML element

#98

Post by y4mi »

giobox wrote: post #48
y4mi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're connected to a VPN, install pi-hole on that network and use it as dns. If not, just get blokada from f-droid. It uses 1-3% energy over the day on my phone, but saves around 15% by filtering ads

It’s a real shame you still can’t install a third party content blocker easily in the default browser on Android. Setup a VPN and PiHole for sure works, but my goodness what a lot of effort when simpler approaches exist, even on Safari on iOS... I’m aware other browsers exist that can do this, but this basically forces me to use a different browser on my phone versus my desktop. Such is the reality of using an OS mad…

That's why I pointed out the second option (blokada). It's just a matter of installing it and you've got Android wide adblock, which mostly works even in non-website contexts

But it doesn't work if you're using a VPN... So it's an either pi-hole or blokada situation

Re: Google launches new “portal” HTML element

#99

Post by mikeash »

uxp100 wrote: post #90
Grumbledour wrote: post #24

It's kind of funny, how mobile today is a big part of traffic and this will only increase, yet while the mobile experience is already terrible, especially in chrome with no script blocker, google constantly works at making it even worse, with preloading of undesired, external content. Does Silicon Valley not have data caps? I guess they never have bad reception, though. So at least the malicious add that preloaded in…

It's been a few years, but IIRC I had poor reception on the Google Campus with AT&T. Some spots with poor coverage by SJC too. Probably folks are just always on wifi.

One imagines that a hotbed of tech would have great cell coverage. However, it’s also a hotbed of NIMBYs and the sort of people who think cell phones give you cancer, making it hard to construct more cells.
Post reply on HN