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

241–250 of 462 posts

Re: Google Web Designer

#241

Post by diminoten »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #233
diminoten wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You don't know if a site contains ads until you visit it, and by then, they've already passed off your information to their Ad network partners and exposed you to the risk of Ad network malware. The safe thing to do is to block Ads by default. And only disable them when they've shown that they're not just letting mass third party Ad networks embed arbitrary script in their page whilst harvesting your private informat…

The safe/private thing to do is not visit any website at all. Ads don't have special access to your computer that a normal website does not. By visiting a new website, ads are by far the least of your worries.

Being online at all exposes you to risk and creates a footprint of your existence. Much like moving around in public does. And just as in moving around in public, the safest and most private thing to do is to not be in public at all.

Re: Google Web Designer

#242

Post by [deleted] »

mattdennewitz wrote: post #165
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.

such entitlement! do you have any idea how publishers make money on the web?

[deleted]

Re: Google Web Designer

#243

Post by robgough »

benologist wrote: post #237
anarchy8 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you feel about having Google as a direct competitor?

They're the perfect competitor - they validate the market, they almost always fail, and they acquire winners.

And of course they'll pull the plug in 18 months or so thus leaving people wanting for a replacement :P

Re: Google Web Designer

#244

Post by icambron »

tdoggette wrote: post #209
icambron wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. The big(gish) script they injected is just fixed overhead, as is the CSS for positioning the canvas. It's just stuff we're used to having in separate files. The actual non-boilerplate part is this: {\"type\":1,\"xoff\":0,\"yoff\":-1.4210854715202004e-14,\"strokeWidth\":1,\"strokeColor\":[0,0,0,1],\"fillColor\":[1,0,0,1],\"tlRadius\":0,\"trRadius\":0,\"blRadius\":0,\"brRadius\":0,\"width\":201,\"height\":104.…

Please edit; stretches the page on 1366 width.

arg, too late for me to do it

Re: Google Web Designer

#245

Post by scholia »

goshx wrote: post #86
JacksonGariety wrote: post #43

Downloaded. Opened. Drew a rectangle. Filled with #FF0000. It spit this out: https://gist.github.com/JacksonGariety/6766626 (after struggling and realizing CMD+S wasn't saving my file) I feel sorry for whoever was tasked with making this application.

This reminds me of the MS Word generating HTML

Not really. MS Word was designed to generate HTML that would look like your original MS Word document and be round-tripped. This is not particularly easy. However, it made sense if you wanted to use your word processor to create and edit web documents (rather than find and learn another program), or publish existing documents as web pages. Which some businesses did.

This did actually make the world a better place insofar as the web got some HTML pages that would otherwise have been Word doc file downloads.

MS Word also produces much smaller HTML pages if you save your web page as "filtered HTML", sacrificing some Word functionality in the process. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word-help/about-using-filt...

However, to do that, you would have to know the "filtered" option was there, and why you might want to use it. Which is probably not your average office drone.

Re: Google Web Designer

#247

Post by egeozcan »

gwdengineer wrote: post #232
simonsarris wrote: post #22

The most important feature of this (to Google(?)) is the built-in ad editor. It's the last point on the feature list page, but it's very telling that it's the first thing on the "Create New" screen. https://support.google.com/webdesigner/answer/3261498?hl=en&...

While Ads is an important focus area for Web Designer, we don't see it as an 'Ads only' tool. Our ambition while building Google Web Designer is that it be a general-purpose, awesome HTML5 content builder. Hence the name Web Designer & not Ad Designer. We aim to learn from our users, iterate & push quickly to reach our ultimate goal of being a kick- general purpose HTML5 builder!

Great work, I really appreciate it and find value in it, but I think you have to be more clear about this "focus area" in the landing page.

Re: Google Web Designer

#248

Post by subsection1h »

abalone wrote: post #172
lukeschlather wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox+NoScript does a pretty good job. Typically, the domains that host the JavaScript to run the ads have no JavaScript I actually want executed. If there's an exceptional case I open it in a Chromium private browsing window.

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.

    NoScript blocks all javascript except for a whitelist you have to construct.
Blocking JavaScript is just one of NoScript's many features. (NoScript's other features include blocking plugins and other embeddings (e.g., HTML5 video and audio), as well as protecting against XSS, CSRFs, and clickjacking.) I use NoScript, but I don't use it to block JavaScript. NoScript's ability to block HTML5 video and audio is one of my favorite features, and I hope that NoScript will block additional HTML5 annoyances in the future, especially as advertisers and other troublemakers make greater use of HTML5.

Re: Google Web Designer

#249

Post by keyle »

camus wrote: post #198
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adobe has Edge Animate for that and Adobe Flash can export to HTML5 as well. http://html.adobe.com/edge/animate/

Given Adobe track record on betrayal, and borderline extorsion schemes , I would not even touch their tools anymore. They had they chance with Flash,Dreamweaver and Fireworks... Flash = almost dead Dreamweaver = Zombie mod Fireworks = Dead despite its powerfull features like jquerymobile skinning,project files as png files,games graphics, native app design, easily customizable through js. Thank you Elop (who sold MM…

No offence but I still make 5 figures using Flash/Flex/AIR for Fortune 100 companies.

Flex with IntelliJ beats the javascript crap sauce anyone tries to push down my throat. The VM is extremely capable (yet terrible advertised and documented) and the language is superb and easily approachable.

If Adobe wasn't such a butt hole* at PR, we'd be in a different situation.

*:understand that Adobe shot itself in the foot in every possible way in the last 3 years.

Post reply on HN