Live data from Hacker News

Google Web Designer

google.com

341–350 of 462 posts

Re: Google Web Designer

#341

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.

Thankfully, AdBlock and friends can also target DOM elements for hiding or outright elimination.

Why do we even waste time detectin and hiding ads? WHy can't we not wasting bandwidth download it at all?

Re: Google Web Designer

#342

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.

> We need something easy and automatic.

Like running ads in a standalone plugin which could be easily disabled. Wait...

Re: Google Web Designer

#343
post #82

I tried to open an existing html file and got: "Unable to open file due to the following error: The file was not created in Google Web Designer." So, basically, Google is just creating their own proprietary format that's built on HTML. Even if you are just using it to construct ads you'll be somewhat locked-in to this toolchain. Since HTML is inherently open people will be able to build converters but it's still a ba…

adding a meta tag with name="generator" content="Google Web Designer 1.0.0.924" was enough for it to open for me.

Re: Google Web Designer

#345
This is really cool. While it's obviously aimed at people making ads (which makes sense for Google), this seems very useful for any kind of interactive element on a web page. I'm pretty sure I'll use it.

Re: Google Web Designer

#346
post #315
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The upper end of five figures is perfectly respectable for that kind of work. I can't imagine people with Adobe product experience are in such short supply to warrant six figures...

In the bay area, Flex devs make > $100/hour, pretty much implying a 6 figure annual rate. Maybe the 5 figures are from another area or country. As a former Flex developer, I must admit that Flex was the best thing that ever happened to web development, but unfortunately the Flash team wasn't strong enough to bring the runtime to mobile with enough quality. Building a RIA in Flex was so incredibly easy, and debugging…

You guys are so far out of touch with the reality of most people.

Re: Google Web Designer

#347
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are Facebook likes while the conversation is about ads on websites. And in the end, he says that interesting content will get you "Likes," where in the current conversation of blocking ads does the visitor contribute after perusing the valuable and interesting content?

Yes, I realize that, but the idea holds. Subscription-based services work if the content is worthwhile. It is an alternative model to ads, sure. One that is proven.

Subscription based services are an alternative, but then you really don't the the ease of redistribution to friends and stuff.

Of course whatever floats your boat as long as there's some sort of compensation for the media one is ingesting. I don't really mind non-intrusive ads all that much.

Re: Google Web Designer

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and I hate it when they use "PC" as a synonym for Microsoft Windows. I do have a PC!

Yeah, and a Mac is a PC, internally speaking too. So, it should OS based : OSX, Windows. This, coming from the number 1 tech company in the world. Kinda disappointing.

Yet somehow everyone understands what people mean when they say "Mac or PC"...

Prescriptivists.

Post reply on HN