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

Google Web Designer

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 462 posts

Re: Google Web Designer

#211

Post by arthulia »

diminoten wrote: post #194
abalone wrote: post #118

Ok, the war is on. Does anyone know of a good HTML5 ad blocker? Flash was awesome . It made it really easy to block animated ads. My browsing experience had been wonderful ever since I installed a Flash blocker a few years ago. Also did wonders for my battery life. Please, please help my browsing experience remain wonderful. Thanks.

Or you could stop using a website you don't think does ads correctly.

I don't think that's completely fair. The people who are providing the content on a lot of web pages are not the same people who are responsible for the monetization scheme. Some sites have good/decent content, but really obtrusive advertisements that the authors aren't responsible for.

Re: Google Web Designer

#212

Post by pbhjpbhj »

abalone wrote: post #179
andybak wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be trickier as just blocking a single plugin is no longer viable. I think an domain blacklist a la Adblock is probably the best idea but that won't help you with ads that are already present in the DOM on pageload.

Doesn't Adblock Plus alter the structure of the page, which can mess up layout? Also believe it or not I don't want to block all ads, just animated ones. I want a general solution for All People, not just us nerds, and erasing advertising from the web would destroy a lot of businesses. I want something browser makers can build in and turn on by default, which is what Safari has essentially done now with Mavericks (Fl…

There's a setting in ABP for Firefox that allows you to show "placeholders of blocked elements". I think that's what you're after if you want to use ABP and maintain the layout?

Re: Google Web Designer

#213

Post by Gormo »

jh3 wrote: post #195
manish_gill wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but what's so wrong with not wanting to have advertisements on your browser? People make their money via ads? Sure, why not. Do I always have to see those ads, and just sigh and "suck it up", even though it's potentially ruining my browsing experience? I don't think so.

> I'm sorry, but what's so wrong with not wanting to have advertisements on your browser? Would you pay a monthly fee to all the websites that provide you content in exchange for an ad free experience?

I don't know about manish_gill, but I certainly wouldn't.

I guess the people running those websites will have to choose between continuing to publish content on the open web, knowing that some users won't look at the ads, or putting everything behind a paywall, knowing that some users won't subscribe.

Re: Google Web Designer

#214

Post by codereflection »

yk wrote: post #208
abalone wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NoScript blocks all javascript except for a whitelist you have to construct. That's way too disruptive as a general solution. We need something easy and automatic.

I am quite happy with Ghostery+NoScript. If you have a general solution, then you would just end up with an arms race. See [0] for details. [0] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/its-made...

IMHO - Ghostery should not be used, Disconnect should be used instead (https://disconnect.me/). Why? Because Ghostery is selling data to advertisers. https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=ghoste...

Re: Google Web Designer

#215

Post by pbhjpbhj »

ben0x539 wrote: post #115
Dirlewanger wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously getting bent out of shape because they said PC and Mac instead of Windows and OS X??? Wow...

As someone who happened to use Linux on their PC while coming across this submission, I was confused for a while as to why the download button was disabled. ;)

Ah, thank you. I've been trying to work out why no one seemed to be mentioning it. I flicked to Chrome, used a proxy ... still greyed out without any explanation.

Google are seriously bad at web design and copy writing it seems based on this.

Re: Google Web Designer

#216

Post by gwdengineer »

alternize wrote: post #190
gwdengineer wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, You can create animations in Google Web Designer in two modes, Quick mode and Advanced mode. In Quick mode, you build your animation scene by scene: you add a new view of the entire page, change the elements you want to animate, and, optionally, modify your transition times and easings. For more complex animation, Advanced mode lets you individually animate each of the the elements, optionally modifying transitio…

the first two links on that help center page result in 404s: "In Quick mode, you ..." ( https://support.google.com/webdesigner/topic/3227054 ) and "... animation, Advanced mode lets ..." ( https://support.google.com/webdesigner/topic/3228643 )

Doh! Good catch!

Our docs team has updated the help links.

Thanks, Google Web Designer team

Re: Google Web Designer

#217

Post by debacle »

arthulia wrote: post #211
diminoten wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you could stop using a website you don't think does ads correctly.

I don't think that's completely fair. The people who are providing the content on a lot of web pages are not the same people who are responsible for the monetization scheme. Some sites have good/decent content, but really obtrusive advertisements that the authors aren't responsible for.

The people providing the content are still being supported by the monetization scheme - you're taking money from them when you use their content without viewing their ads.

Re: Google Web Designer

#218

Post by teleclimber »

JacksonGariety wrote: post #173
gwdengineer wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, We are glad you are trying out GWD. You are correct that it seems like a bit of overhead just to render a simple rectangle. However, as alphakappa astutely observed, there is some overhead to parse the JSON data which describes the various shapes and to render those shapes in canvas(es). What you see is the entire canvas rendering library used by GWD. That code will be reused for additional shapes you create, inc…

I'm curious, why not... #rectangle { width: 200px; height: 150px; background #FF0000; } ...by default?

Because you used the "shape" tool and not the "tag" tool.

Re: Google Web Designer

#219

Post by gwdengineer »

Slackwise wrote: post #193
gwdengineer wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, Google Web Designer is free. ;o) Thanks, Google Web Designer team

I think they meant actual free software: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software Unless your wink is an attempt to mock them.

Hi,

No, we misunderstood what davexunit meant by "free" and are sorry for the confusion.

Thanks, Google Web Designer team

Re: Google Web Designer

#220

Post by michaelbuddy »

andybak wrote: post #123
krsunny wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never thought flash was all that easy to use. I could never get the timeline to cooperate with what I was trying to do (drag/copy/paste frames etc)

The Flash timeline was counterintuitive but once you grokked it, it was super easy and super efficient. I came to Flash from After Effects (much more intuitive keyframing) and hated Flash until my brain clicked with it.

the flash timeline has poor visual cues on it as to what was going on. key frames area easy enough to get. but sometimes the timeline ends in a dash pattern, then there's the multiple open and closed ends on one timeline. All in all there are just too many states. Live motion was a good tool that just never got out of a buggy state but had an easier timeline to work in.
Post reply on HN