[HN Gopher] Stop Asking Me to "Sign Up" (2014)
___________________________________________________________________
Stop Asking Me to "Sign Up" (2014)
Author : jeremylevy
Score : 234 points
Date : 2020-09-26 15:47 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.gkogan.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.gkogan.co)
| nostromo wrote:
| Don't "growth hack" your sign up, just remove it completely if at
| all possible, or push it as late as possible in the process
| (after the user has engaged with the product).
|
| This is one of the lessons of TikTok.
|
| Virtually every SV startup asks you to sign up now, provide a ton
| of information about yourself, and then spam you relentlessly
| with marketing email.
|
| Part of TikTok's genius is that you just open up the app and
| you're immediately interacting with the content.
| McDev wrote:
| I was intrigued by this comment and downloaded TikTok, only to
| find that they now push for sign up immediately!
| m463 wrote:
| 1) provide a good service
|
| 2) gain market share
|
| 3) gain marketing patterns
| [deleted]
| chefgoldbluum wrote:
| This sort of sounds like bullshit. It's definitely conjecture as
| there's nothing concrete to back it up. My own conjecture: Use
| nuance, but in general if someone is on your landing page they
| have some idea of what your product is. "Sign Up" is a well
| established convention that immediately signals to the user you
| have a platform model that requires or adds benefit through
| authentication. Anyway this article is from 2014 and most big
| platforms still use Sign Up.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| This article is from 2014, right now my annoyance is more all
| these apps with low self esteem.
|
| Always this stupid question "do you like this app" and then
| redirecting me to the play store to vote if I say yes or the
| support site when I say no. And to make matters worse they keep
| doing it every few days. Once is passable, over and over is NOT.
|
| I've started to give 1-star reviews to these apps. So sick of
| this behaviour. Especially many of Microsoft's corporate apps do
| this (like outlook or teams) and most people download these
| because they need them, not because of some rating.
|
| edit: I mean I do the 1-star thing with the apps which keep
| asking. If they ask once I just don't do the review (If I really
| _love_ the app I would have left a 5-star review anyway). But
| once it comes up again I do this.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| App developers do this because, gasp, it works. Filtering
| reviews this way absolutely, quantitatively, repeatedly boosts
| app ratings, and apps with higher ratings get more downloads.
| Don't expect developers to stop doing this just because it
| annoys you.
| ufmace wrote:
| I think he did say - it's one thing to do it once. It gets
| really annoying when apps do it over and over again.
| ulucs wrote:
| Unless enough people start giving one stars because of such
| filtering :^)
| the__alchemist wrote:
| I'll join in on punishing these techniques, in an effort to
| make it not work.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| We should not be justifying shitty negative externalities
| because "they help the developer". We should be destroying
| existing systems and reforming them so that _everyone_ is
| happy
| sdkjfnnjjj wrote:
| What mechanism would you propose?
| frenchy wrote:
| Personally, I get around this by only using apps off
| F-Droid. I'm sure not everyone would be happy with that
| solution, but it works well for me.
| megous wrote:
| Allow apps to disable/remove ratings completely, and
| prioritize apps with ratings disabled above those with
| ratings enabled.
|
| In-platform ratings and the constant nagging would
| disappear overnight.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| Ratings systems have been gamed to meaninglessness. First
| stop would probably be removing those.
|
| I realize that creates more discovery problems, but I
| think that can be ameliorated somewhat by making more use
| of professional reviewers and app-store integrations with
| publications like Wirecutter or Consumer Reports.
| sdkjfnnjjj wrote:
| True that rating systems have been hacked. Maybe it
| really boils down to only following reviews from people
| you trust, which could be selected professional
| reviewers.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| I think apps could look to how music spreads for
| inspiration here. There is not a huge importance on
| "ratings" in music consumption, and some people spend a
| lot of time listening to playlists or DJ sets by
| curators. Plus you have apps like Shazam that can
| identify songs mid-air and mid-play. Translate this to
| apps?
|
| Or, imagine an App Store, but without search, categories,
| or any kind of discoverability at all. Let the community
| handle the discoverability aspect.
| bonestormii_ wrote:
| Interestingly, I'm pretty sure _apps_ that drive traffic
| to other apps are generally not permitted on the app
| store, per some huge HN thread recently featuring a
| letter to Tim Cook from the developer of such an app who
| got removed.
|
| I feel like the internet-pro's work around to validating
| quality of anything, strangely, is to find a reddit
| thread where people seem to discuss it meaningfully and
| logically.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Subreddit trick is super useful. Also for avoiding
| disinformation, which is a problem in any topic that
| applies to the general population, because these are
| thoroughly SEO-saturated by content marketing scoundrels.
| So usually one of the first things I do is search "<topic
| of interest> site:reddit.com", look for dedicated
| subreddits, and browse the top posts and the subreddit
| wiki. More often than not, there's a lot of solid
| community knowledge collected there.
|
| Circling back to the topic of apps and ratings, I pretty
| much never use the app store for product discovery. If I
| install an app, it's because I knew about it from
| elsewhere. May be a professional reviewer, may be a
| friend, or may be a random poster on HN. Basically, it
| must be a human who I can be confident isn't trying to
| deceive me.
| rpeden wrote:
| I'm not sure that making everyone happy is an achievable
| goal.
|
| I enjoy rating and reviewing apps, and I don't mind when
| apps ask me to do it. So your proposed solution would make
| me unhappy vs. the status quo.
| mortehu wrote:
| Maybe a platform will ban or penalize this behavior if we
| complain about it loudly enough. It is or will become a Nash
| equilibrium that can only be resolved by Apple and Google.
|
| Once all apps do this, the app developers are back to where
| they started, but users are worse off.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| IIRC Apple requires apps to use Apple's method to ask users
| to review. And they respect the "don't bother me" answer.
| ziml77 wrote:
| I don't know how much teeth the Play Store rules have, but I
| wish it was against the ToS to display things like that. Or at
| least disallow having an option that expresses dissatisfaction
| while bypassing the Play Store review system, but sending any
| positive response along to it to boost the application's
| rating.
| jrockway wrote:
| I think Apple actually has an API for this flow. So it's not
| against the ToS, it's actually something they encourage!
| (Here's the API: https://developer.apple.com/app-
| store/ratings-and-reviews/)
|
| This goes to show one of the big problems with app stores.
| Apple wants to have a bunch of apps that all have 5 star
| reviews, so you think everyone using an iPhone is happy and
| that all the apps are Just Great. You joined a club when
| buying an iPhone and everyone here is just so happy and would
| never ever think of leaving! Since they control the OS and
| manually approve every app, they can make sure that the apps
| go out of their way to encourage people to think the club is
| perfect. The fact that 99% of reviews are completely
| misleading is a problem for another day. (They probably
| filter out reviews like "1 star: asks me 3 times a day if I
| like the app." Amazon sure does. I have posted a number of
| thoughtful 1 star reviews on Amazon for completely flawed
| products, including objective data showing the flaws... and
| they just got removed instantly. Conflict of interest up the
| wazoo.)
|
| Somehow I don't think this model would work too well if there
| were a competing app store with honest reviews.
|
| (Not that I think you can ever have honest reviews.
| Everything about reviews, not only in the mobile app
| category, is basically completely flawed.)
| ziml77 wrote:
| What you're showing is exactly a case that I think is okay
| as long as it's not spammed to the user. Any rating that's
| chosen through this will go directly to the App Store
| listing instead of being filtered out by redirecting the
| user to some feedback form.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| Well apple both limits the number of times that prompt can
| be shown to a user and makes sure that _all_ ratings are
| counted, not just favorable ones. Seems like the best
| option short of banning pop up alerts altogether.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| > This goes to show one of the big problems with app
| stores. Apple wants to have a bunch of apps that all have 5
| star reviews, so you think everyone using an iPhone is
| happy and that all the apps are Just Great.
|
| _OR_ Apple wants to improve user experience by requiring
| developers to use something that respects the "don't bother
| me" answer. Apple is not the best, but not everything is a
| conspiracy
| awillen wrote:
| You've clearly never been on the other side of things...
| ratings help app developers get reviews, which is important for
| their business. It's a hard place to be, and they're doing
| something that works, even if it is kind of annoying.
|
| For Microsoft apps, sure, rate whatever you want, but if you're
| giving 1-star reviews to apps made by smaller developers just
| because they're asking for a review of their app, you're just a
| jerk.
| ulucs wrote:
| It's more because of the dark pattern of blocking possible
| bad reviews by redirecting them to support.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Well usually bad reviews do include a lot of details. I
| also often see support from the company actually responding
| to users, and these issues getting resolved and the ratings
| modified. This is one way where that process works well.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Well it's more than "kind of" annoying. Just to clarify: I'm
| only doing the 1-star review on apps that ask _more than
| once_.
|
| But tbh I haven't seen it in apps made by smaller developers.
| Only in ones by big companies. The ones made by smaller devs
| usually care much more about their user experience, if they
| ask it at all they ask it once only and not over and over
| again like Microsoft does. Reddit's app is another big one
| there but obviously they don't give anything about their
| users, they are super annoying anyway (like constantly trying
| to force you to use the app if you view reddit in a
| webbrowser on a phone).
|
| But the ones I use from smaller devs are usually FOSS so they
| don't care about their ratings at all, as they don't make
| money anyway. And I'm much more likely to support these with
| good ratings anyway. I don't care about Microsoft's business
| :)
|
| Still, I think it is bad practice. If I love an app I give it
| a good rating anyway. If you do it, please don't make it a
| yes/no. But also include a "stop bothering me" button :)
| impendia wrote:
| I recently gave a 1-star review to Adobe Acrobat Reader,
| when it interrupted me to ask for an App Store rating.
|
| If I were using an app made my some small, scrappy
| developer, then there is no way I'd do this. It would feel
| rude, and I'd understand that they might need to scramble
| to survive. But _Adobe_? Come on.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| The point is to make it not work so that they try something
| else.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Disagreed.
|
| The primary purpose of the app is to do whatever the app is
| supposed to do, so unless the app's only purpose is to ask
| for feedback then asking for feedback (especially in the
| middle of a task) is disruptive and annoying.
|
| --- Enjoying this post? Please leave a review in the form of
| an upvote! ---
|
| Furthermore I think asking for reviews should be banned by
| the App Store (whether Google's or Apple's) guidelines as to
| put every app on the same playing field. Reviews are best
| when they come organically instead of being gamed by nagging
| the user (and a lot of people will just respond randomly with
| a 5-star just so it gets out of their way).
|
| --- We've noticed you still haven't upvoted this post. Would
| you mind doing so now? It would really help us. ---
|
| This relatively recent (10 years ago this didn't seem like a
| widespread thing) trend of constantly asking for feedback or
| similar ("SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON!") is extremely annoying and
| I wish all platforms would take steps to penalize this
| behavior given how annoying it is (as you can probably see
| right here). It's even worse when it's about a product that
| has already lots of publicized complaints that remain ignored
| for years (looking at Windows 10 or similar Microsoft
| products).
| ufmace wrote:
| It would be hilariously ironic if this turned out to be
| /u/Nextgrid's most highly upvoted post
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I think Apple already does block apps that keep fishing for
| reviews. But I haven't used iOS in a while. Google's
| validation process isn't that deep so they will usually
| miss this.
|
| But yes I agree, it is _so_ annoying. Especially in paid
| apps. I already paid for the app so obviously I like it.
| Dahoon wrote:
| Not really unless it is spamming users. Apple have an API
| for sending "yes I like your app" to give a rating and
| give "no I hate it" a feedback form. On the Play store it
| is "gaming the system". In the App store it is "working
| as intended".
| pier25 wrote:
| I agree and I wish YouTube videos stopped asking me to
| subscribe and click the notification bell.
| yoz-y wrote:
| Game theory applies. If everybody stopped doing this then
| sure. As things stand ratings/likes/points are a signal to
| the aggregators that a thing is popular _and_ useful.
|
| Note that on iOS asking for reviews otherwise than through
| the system dialog is basically forbidden (rule 5.6.1). This
| method does not allow spamming the user as the dialog can
| only be shown a number of times during a period of time.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| Then the correct game-theoretic action to make this
| behaviour stop is to leave a 1-star review on any app
| that asks.
| kickopotomus wrote:
| I would agree if they only ask once, but on a lot of apps
| nowadays it's a daily or weekly occurrence. That's annoying.
| If I already said that I do not wish to rate/review your app,
| don't ask again.
| chepaslaaa wrote:
| If your user experience pisses off users you'll get knee jerk
| reactions.
| jakub_g wrote:
| It's a _really_ important thing for the apps because by default
| only unhappy people go to Play Store and give 1 star. Then it
| looks like your app is crap and the competitors are way better.
|
| In prev job, we had few ratings of our app, and avg. of 3.5.
| After adding the question, we got thousands of 5 stars and went
| to avg. 4.7 in a few months.
|
| Of course the app should give you "I don't care" option, and
| store your answer to not repeat the question.
| Dahoon wrote:
| I always answer yes and give a one star rating. An app that
| tries to game the system (and likely breaks the stores rules)
| deserve it.
| jakub_g wrote:
| You see two competing apps. One is rated 3.5 and has 100
| reviews, another is rated 4.4 and has 10000 reviews. Which
| one do you install?
| cgriswald wrote:
| In both cases I'm going to look at the reviews.
|
| In the case of a lot of 5-star reviews with little to no
| content, I'm going to assume they've either gamed it in
| the way being described upthread or that the reviews are
| fake, which renders the rating and number of reviews
| irrelevant to me.
|
| I'll definitely look at some 4-star reviews to see what
| people who liked the app in general didn't like. I'll
| also read some 1-star reviews to see if there are any red
| flags/deal breakers like... the pestering behavior being
| described upthread.
|
| This type of behavior is unlikely to succeed with me if I
| find out it occurs. Not everyone does it and "it makes me
| more money" might be a reason someone would do it, but it
| doesn't convince me I should tolerate it. I'm extremely
| intolerant of any behavior that shows disrespect for
| users and doesn't value their time.
|
| This method could succeed with me if it was a one-time
| purchase and I was unaware of the behavior. It won't
| succeed with me if the app is free and offers IAP
| (something I tend to avoid anyway, though) or if it is a
| subscription-based app.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| One of them. Or neither. I'm not using the app store for
| product discovery. Ratings are thoroughly gamed and
| comments are bullshit. If I install an app, it's because
| of an outside recommendation, and so I search directly
| for it by name.
|
| (It's a principle I live by in general: don't use
| e-commerce platforms for product discovery; neither the
| platform nor the sellers have any incentive to give you
| best value for your time/money, and manipulation is
| rampart.)
|
| But I get your point. If I were to choose, I'd probably
| lean towards the higher-rated and higher-review-count
| app, but I would make sure to read a few 1-star and
| 5-star reviews on both to determine how trustworthy the
| app is.
| devilduck wrote:
| You try them both and decide for yourself what you like.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Usually I would just try the free version of both. And
| then decide.
| badsectoracula wrote:
| The second one, of course, but that should come from
| genuine reviews, not gaming the system because when you
| do that then it devalues the system for everyone.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| Both. Say I'm looking for a budget app. They can be very
| different and work very differently. Also given that it
| is still possible to buy reviews, how much do you really
| trust them. I would even look at the app that had 1000
| one star reviews out of curiosity. I mean Apple's own
| apps often have a 2 star average and they are the ones I
| use all the time.
|
| I think I'm going to adopt the strategy of leaving a 1
| star review saying "the app prompted me to review it
| before I got to use it".
| hyakosm wrote:
| Same rules applies to all apps. It's curious to have 1 star
| when competitors have 4 or 5 stars.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| I wonder if apps targeting userbases that are more averse to
| being nagged like this get overall lower reviews.
|
| App stores should really abandon reviews, they're clearly
| broken, due to this effect. Instead, maybe app stores should
| measure user engagement, and rank apps that way.
| scollet wrote:
| How do you measure user engagement?
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Back in '14 I did a ASO course "App Store Optimisation" that
| pushed this technique. It was one of the things I didn't do
| because it seemed too cringy for me.
| stevula wrote:
| Usually if you say you don't like the app it won't direct you
| to the App Store but will just ask for feedback within the app.
| It's much less disruptive than saying "yes" and getting
| switched to the App Store.
| godot wrote:
| I'm probably in the minority here and I can't speak for any
| startup I worked for, but persoonally, I prefer "Sign Up" way
| more than any of those other variations. It's familiar, I don't
| ignore it, and I have a pretty good sense of what to expect
| (giving my email, making up a password, and getting a
| verification email and clicking on it).
|
| Most of the other examples are problematic for me personally when
| I imagine what's involved: "Try it Free" or "Free Trial" makes me
| think they want my credit card upfront, "Get Access" sounds like
| they want me to jump through some hoops, "Get Started" sounds
| like the beginning of a long painful series of steps.
|
| But I guess if those get 3x clicks, I must be in the minority.
| rewq4321 wrote:
| Even better: If possible, don't ask for a signup until the user
| has actually tried your product. Just create a guest account
| which is deleted if unclaimed for a week or so, and disable
| "sensitive" features that could be abused.
|
| I have a couple of sites where I allow them to use the product
| just like a signed-in user, but to _save_ their work, they need
| to sign in. So people can play around and try things about before
| entrusting me with their email.
| snazz wrote:
| This is how Discord works and it's really great there. Anyone
| can start chatting with just an invite link.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Scrimba who recently posted a launch HN [1] does this for their
| teaching/coding platform.
|
| It's so rare to see that I thought wow this is it was really
| neat! [2] is an example of this.
|
| 1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579699
|
| 2 https://scrimba.com/learn/learnreact/react-todo-app-
| phase-7-...
| WWLink wrote:
| Oh man, some web stores are like that! It's sooooooo nice.
| Like, you place your order as a guest and at the end it's like
| "hey if you give us a password we'll make an account for you!"
|
| THOSE ARE THE BEST!
| diggan wrote:
| And you then sign up to ShoppingSpree.com in order to get
| your thing delivered. Email verification comes in, everything
| set. You get to the final order screen, enter your address
| and now they tell you they don't ship to your country, and
| the information was never shown before, as they never
| actually performed the validation until after you signed up.
|
| Yeah, been through that. So much fun.
| endless1234 wrote:
| But hey, no problem, you can still get these 4 newsletters
| Free Of Charge delivered Straight To Your Inbox weekly! No
| need to thank us!
| waynecochran wrote:
| This page immediately had a pop up to ask for my email...
| funny...
| solarkraft wrote:
| That's a great way of doing it: The initial friction is
| essentially 0 _and_ you 're already locking the user in a bit.
| ew6082 wrote:
| Pinterest drove me up a wall with this. I didn't sign up for
| 4-5 years, and only because I actually needed to see an image
| for work, because the arrogance was annoying. I have a
| permanent dislike for their product because of it.
| z3ncyberpunk wrote:
| This is horrible advice. There is no problem with sign in. Shit
| like "Try it free" just feels like I'm being sold something
| already and you instantly lost my business.
| benrbray wrote:
| More importantly, stop showing me "Sign Up" buttons if I'm
| already logged in! And when I'm logged out, don't hide the "Sign
| In" button from me!
|
| I can never remember if it's https://www.google.com/drive/ or
| https://drive.google.com/. For the longest time, the first link
| was just a splash advertisement for Drive with a big "Sign Up"
| button, and no clear way to actually get to my drive folder.
| GitHub has a similar issue, as do countless other websites that I
| use on a daily basis.
| paco3346 wrote:
| This one drives me up a wall. I always find myself thinking
| "hey jerk I'm already a paying customer where the f is MY
| button?"
| mrweasel wrote:
| This annoys me to no end with product like Lastpass. Why the
| hell is the "Sign Up" more prominent than the "Sign In/Login"
| button. I'm going to be signing in every single day, I'm only
| signing up once.
|
| No one ever opted to not sign up for a service because link
| wasn't visible enough. If I'm sufficiently interested to want
| to pay, then I can find the sign up link.
| randycupertino wrote:
| > Why the hell is the "Sign Up" more prominent than the
| "Sign In/Login" button. I'm going to be signing in every
| single day, I'm only signing up once.
|
| Agree! imo is just a blatant reminder that they care more
| about getting new customers than servicing their existing
| customers.
| dmd wrote:
| > No one ever opted to not sign up for a service because
| link wasn't visible enough.
|
| I sure hope that's sarcasm... lack of a clear obvious
| signup path is literally the number one funnel exit.
| tchalla wrote:
| Let's assume that LastPass has thought this through
| clearly. Would it be possible that they place more emphasis
| on Sign Up rather than Log In user due to some internal
| metric which they use to benchmark their service? I'm not
| saying the metric is right. I'm wondering why they chose to
| do so.
| macjohnmcc wrote:
| I hate going to a website of which I have already signed up and
| the main page is more focused on attracting new signups than
| making it clear how to sign in for those already signed up.
| SIGN UP...... (sign in in tiny letters)
| edoceo wrote:
| Reddit too, it's like they don't expect users to come back.
| Perhaps another example of managers chasing the wrong metrics
| hinkley wrote:
| We've been dealing with this for decades at least.
|
| Employee retention can often cost much less than hiring and
| training a replacement, but nobody worries about that until
| the problem is too big to shrug off.
|
| I don't know where they expect this infinite pool of new
| users is coming from at this point.
| edoceo wrote:
| My theory is it's just alt accounts for trolls or
| "unsavory" content (eg: adult, politics, WSB)
| vezycash wrote:
| About a month ago, reddit sent me an email to "verify my
| account" - an account I've had for years. I clicked the link
| to activate it only for another "verify your account" email
| to appear a few weeks later which I promptly deleted.
| m463 wrote:
| https://smile.amazon.com too. Now you have to click on "Let's
| Get Started"
| vincentmarle wrote:
| Segment.com's homepage does this: the only way to "sign in", is
| to click on "sign up"!
| rabuse wrote:
| Definitely one of the worst dark patterns to a site you
| frequent.
| rtx wrote:
| This is one of the most confusing trends for me. Until I
| realized that Web design is mostly led by marketing and they
| care more about top of the funnel. Customer success should
| have a seat at the table.
| Axsuul wrote:
| I see "Log in"
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Advertising splashes should never be allowed on base page URIs.
|
| Just forward to another page, and don't bother your _current_
| users.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _And when I 'm logged out, don't hide the "Sign In" button from
| me!_
|
| Digital Ocean is guilty of this. If you're on a phone, or a
| tablet, or any browser with a window narrower than about 700px,
| the page is so obsessed with selling Digital Ocean that in
| order for an existing customer to use an account you've already
| paid for, you have to click the hamburger menu, and then
| scroll... scroll... scroll... all the way down to the bottom of
| 75 options to find a sign-in button.
|
| For a company that brands itself as being tech-forward and
| people-friendly, Digital Ocean should know better.
| Dahoon wrote:
| A phone with less than 700px width in 2020? The sites I work
| with have small screens at around 1000-1200 px width. 700 is
| more like a wap feature phone..
| asalahli wrote:
| iPhone SE came out in 2016 and has a resolution of
| 640x1136. I still use it.
| cocire wrote:
| The newer generation of the SE came out this year (2020)
| and works great too
| ehsanu1 wrote:
| Css width is probably 320px on that too. Css pixels are
| not screen pixels.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _A phone with less than 700px width in 2020?_
|
| On a mobile device, web display pixels (logical pixels) are
| not the same as physical pixels.
|
| An iPhone SE's logical width is 320px.
|
| An iPhone 8 is 375px.
|
| An iPhone 8 Plus is 414 px.
|
| An iPad is 768px.
|
| _700 is more like a wap feature phone_
|
| WAP phones were closer to 180px. I know because I built
| local WAP news and weather sites for them. Squeezing color
| radar maps into 180px was... interesting.
| rriepe wrote:
| > An iPhone SE's logical width is 320px.
|
| I always forget about this one. Thanks for ruining my
| afternoon.
| cocire wrote:
| I love my iPhone SE since I can easily use it one-handed
| without worrying about dropping a $1,000 electronic
| device
| tomc1985 wrote:
| I did too, but with battery health at 91% I'd get maybe
| an hour of heavy use (and 12hr of light use) before
| having to charge it
| benrbray wrote:
| Even on desktop I always have two windows open side-by-
| side. Normally it's VS Code and Chrome, so I can reference
| documentation while coding, or take Markdown notes while
| reading. Most websites seem not to be designed for this use
| case, which is a shame since the solution is usually
| setting min-width to a smaller value.
| Zak wrote:
| Multi-display or a huge single display and a cooperate
| window manager is a real game changer for productivity...
| unless of course "desktop" actually means a laptop used
| away from a desk.
| dkersten wrote:
| I love Digital Ocean, but this annoys me so much. If anyone
| from DO sees this, please fix this crap!
| bredren wrote:
| We need an extension in the meantime.
|
| This is bad at even at 1000px. That's 1/3rd of an xdr pro
| display and my most common window width now.
| amelius wrote:
| > I can never remember if it's https://www.google.com/drive/ or
| https://drive.google.com/.
|
| I can never remember if my stuff is in Google Drive or Google
| Docs.
| erikig wrote:
| It is even more confusing on mobile :(
|
| When I have a .docx file on Google Drive - will I need the
| Google Drive App , the Google Docs app or should I just get
| the Microsoft Word mobile app?
| itisit wrote:
| Google Drive. All G Suite apps store files there. A
| particular G Suite app's file list will only show files from
| your Google Drive that are editable/viewable by that
| particular app.
| fny wrote:
| Blame cacheability. Landing pages should load at breakneck
| speed, so everyone dumps static content to a CDN and never
| makes a trip to a DB.
| megous wrote:
| Store a cookie. Invented like 50 years ago.
| ianai wrote:
| How I'm reading that is modern web devs are awful at doing
| their job.
| nyanpasu64 wrote:
| Discord and Element's homepages are info/signup pages even if
| you're logged in. So is AppVeyor's homepage.
| knl wrote:
| Ironically, this website does the same...
| tyingq wrote:
| I've noticed a movement with newspapers and other media sites to
| go one farther with a pop-up overlay begging for subscription
| where I have to hunt for the close button.
| plumsempy wrote:
| and then there are those who don't have a close button and make
| me open up the console, delete that DOM element and restore the
| scroll. Had to once so it on a website that was teaching
| javascript, which was ironic.
| TheMerovingian wrote:
| Someone should make an extension that does this
| automatically.
| notRobot wrote:
| uBlock Origin has annoyance filters that do just this
| bredren wrote:
| I did not realize this, thanks for the note. I had 0/7 of
| these turned on.
| fucknugget wrote:
| Yeah.
|
| Someone should make my dinner too.
| JxLS-cpgbe0 wrote:
| They convert I'm afraid, and it's a good place to remind the
| reader that this is a product they use
| Nextgrid wrote:
| What does this "conversion" mean? The ultimate objective
| would be for some $$$ to leave the user's wallet and go into
| the company's wallet, and I am not sure if this actually
| happens.
|
| First off, people who give out their email easily would
| typically do so on plenty of other sites and your subsequent
| upselling emails are likely to get lost in an inbox flooded
| by spam.
|
| Second, I'd argue that people who have the most disposable
| income or influence on purchasing decisions made by their
| company are also those whose time is limited and are too
| smart to fall for such tricks, so the majority of leads you
| do end up with would be worthless.
| bradgessler wrote:
| I'd like to see somebody create a real paper newspaper that
| mimics what they have become today.
|
| I'd imagine you'd start with the newspaper as it was 20 years
| ago: newsprint with some black text on it. Then you'd overlay
| some opaque paper over that with some text in it that said,
| "give us your address or phone number so we can contact you for
| breaking news". Instead of a close button it would be something
| that people would have to tear off each page of the paper.
|
| That's not all though. Each paper would come with an actual
| person who would sit behind you and quietly take meticulous
| notes on which articles you read and how you reacted to them.
| That person would quietly leave with the notes, take it back to
| HQ, and tabulate which articles people engaged with the most.
| Over time the content with the lowest engagement would be
| trimmed and those journalists fired.
|
| This is the world we live in today.
| gk1 wrote:
| Not really, because you would have paid for that paper. I get
| the criticisms about paywalls and pop ups and all that, but
| let's acknowledge that they have to make money somehow or
| they won't last.
| jbay808 wrote:
| They don't track your reading metrics when you're a
| subscriber?
| criddell wrote:
| Paying for a digital subscription doesn't relieve you of
| those problems. They still want to send you notifications
| and they still track you as you use their site.
| sjy wrote:
| In fact, if you are used to ad blocking in the web
| browser, it can make the problem worse! Every digital
| subscription I've paid for put me onto multiple mailing
| lists, some of which are active multiple times a week,
| and required me to unsubscribe from them individually.
| hinkley wrote:
| You understand that all the ads and classifieds subsidized
| the hell out of that paper, right?
|
| They want $5 for some magazines now and there are so many
| ads at the beginning that you can't find the fucking table
| of contents to locate the cover articles that grabbed your
| eye.
|
| That's pretty close to what pop ups do.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| Twenty years ago, every self-respecting middle class
| household within a 50-mile radius of your newsroom subscribed
| to your paper from adulthood until death. Unless you lived in
| a major city like NY or Chicago, you likely had no
| competition for subscribers. And, every business in that
| radius bought ads in your paper.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| The ads had some kind of human review so scams and
| Taboola/Outbrain weren't a thing and people trusted them
| which was a win-win for both the consumer, the newspaper
| and the advertiser.
| ben509 wrote:
| That person sitting behind you also has to start pleading
| with you to sign up for a subscription the moment you look
| away from it to get your coffee.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Not only that, they start to guilt trip you if you don't
| watch all 60 seconds of that really hilarious ad that you
| didn't ask to see but they're sure you'll enjoy anyway.
| ramoz wrote:
| Need YouTube to stop asking me for a premium free trial
| RegW wrote:
| Need Amazon to stop replacing the "Continue" button with
| "Continue with Prime".
|
| Keep cancelling it, but they keep tricking me again.
| jmole wrote:
| If you use YouTube so much that a free trial offer bothers you,
| you might just consider subscribing. Ad-free YouTube is a
| glorious experience.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Ad-free YouTube is a glorious experience._
|
| I get this for free using AdGuard Home[1] that blocks ads at
| the network level. It's great.
|
| [1] https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome
| sjy wrote:
| DNS blocking doesn't work on ads in YouTube's mobile apps.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| NewPipe does, and you can do picture-in-picture on phones
| for free.
| mynameishere wrote:
| I'm not sure I've seen an ad on youtube, but I do know
| there's nothing glorious about it.
| jsrcout wrote:
| I didn't know YouTube even had ads for several years. Family
| and I all use adblock. Then I watched a video on someone
| else's computer and it was like, where did all these ads come
| from?
| ahmedalsudani wrote:
| Long ago, I decided Google will not get a single penny from
| my purse, and I have lived up to that.
|
| Ad-free YouTube = ad blocker in a browser ... while that
| lasts :)
|
| To preempt the question about content creators: I support the
| creators I want to support on patreon or by pledging on their
| website.
| yesplorer wrote:
| Your usage of YouTube cost Google money. If you believe
| Google doesn't deserve your money, why consume their
| product?
| renewiltord wrote:
| The real answer if you're working in the space is that
| users will take a free thing over a paid/ad thing any
| day. They'll usually come up with some rationalization
| (don't like DRM, don't like targeting, etc.) but the
| reality is they just don't want to pay.
|
| Don't fall into the trap of ever trying to build for
| these guys. No money will ever arrive, only ever more
| obscure conditions for the money.
|
| There are places where users will pay. Just make things
| for them instead.
| ahmedalsudani wrote:
| From my comment:
|
| > To preempt the question about content creators: I
| support the creators I want to support on patreon or by
| pledging on their website.
|
| Every month, I __happily __fork over more money than my
| annual value to google. Only in one case is that money
| for paywalled material. The rest is purely to support
| content I enjoy. I would be equally willing to fund a
| platform that does not treat users and creators as
| cattle.
|
| It's true that many users have an inflated sense of
| entitlement. That has been created by the business model
| of offering "free" services in exchange for your data.
| Giving Google money now to get rid of the ads is
| rewarding them for building monopolies and then bilking
| their users.
|
| Speaking for myself and not for the average user, I'm not
| about to fork over my data and my cash to the #1
| beneficiary of the user entitlement that you're
| describing.
| ahmedalsudani wrote:
| Give me a different path to the content, and I will
| gladly take it. The reason I take this roundabout route
| is that YouTube owns the monopoly on online video.
|
| And Google still makes money off me because I can't block
| their ads on Apple TV--I just don't want to hand them
| money from my own accounts. They have become incredibly
| user-hostile once they felt secure in their monopoly
| position. That attitude completely turned me off.
| foxdev wrote:
| Probably the same reason people used IE6 after it went
| stagnant. What was your choice? It's not like most
| YouTube channels have websites they publish stuff to as
| an alternative.
| Minor49er wrote:
| YouTube has operated the same business model as companies
| like Uber and Jet. They deliberately burn money and turn
| no profits in order to gain the most marketshare. Then,
| after they have dominated the marketplace, they start
| raising prices, showing more ads, etc, to start turning
| that around.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| Their product is the platform. I'm not there to consume
| the platform. I'm there to watch videos uploaded by a
| third party. I could care less who hosts it.
|
| If you want people to view your ads then don't serve
| content using a protocol that have user agents that run
| on my machine where I am in control of what they do, or
| at least if you do, don't be surprised when I run user
| agents that do what I want them to do.
|
| Google's alternative is to embed the ads directly into
| the video at presentation time (which also won't work so
| long as I can fast forward).
| yesplorer wrote:
| It's sheer hypocrisy that makes you think you're in the
| right. The platform costs money to deliver content to
| you.
|
| You could care less who hosts it yet you care to type
| YouTube.com into your address bar to find the content you
| want.
|
| In any case, if you think the company doesn't deserve
| your money, simply don't consume videos via their
| platform.
|
| If you really mean it, simply stop using the service
| because the more you use it, the more they retain market
| share and get to serve more ads to other users. So
| effectively, you're contributing to their growth.
|
| Live by your word and don't use YouTube if you detest
| Google that much.
|
| There's no dignity in double standards.
| ahmedalsudani wrote:
| Wonderful. So when, as an individual, I watch a company:
|
| - evading most taxes,
|
| - offering 0 support to users,
|
| - breaking the user experience to force users through
| their "app funnel,"
|
| - shutting down independent developers without recourse,
|
| - bullying any small fish in their path,
|
| - conspiring to depress labour salaries, and
|
| - shirking any societal or moral obligations,
|
| ...that's just business.
|
| But then when, having observed their psychopathic
| behaviour, I decide that I don't want to be part of
| funding this evil entity, now I'm holding a double
| standard by accessing the content this monopoly has
| become the sole gatekeeper for.
|
| Give me a break.
|
| (Leaving untouched the fact that their business model
| revolves around collecting as much private information as
| possible.)
| ponker wrote:
| Kind of a dumb suggestion given you have no idea how much
| money the parent has, so how much they can afford to pay to
| avoid annoyance.
| executesorder66 wrote:
| It's already ad-free if you use uBlock Origin. And so is the
| rest of the internet.
| scarface74 wrote:
| If I ever did think about subscribing to Youtube to get rid of
| commercials, they do so many user hostile things that I
| wouldn't.
|
| - no Picture in Picture support in the iPad app. So I have to
| use a third party app. I think it supports PiP from Safari on
| the iPad.
|
| - when iOS 14 came out and supported PiP on the phone, you
| could use PiP to view Youtube in Safari. Google went out of its
| way to disable it the next day.
|
| - then people found a work around by viewing in desktop mode. A
| day later Google disabled that.
|
| - So now I have to use a Shortcut to watch YouTube with PiP.
| samatman wrote:
| Google's behavior on iOS is incredibly petty, and I'm of the
| opinion that it damages the brand.
|
| All of their apps are 'google flavored', they staunchly
| refuse to design iOS apps which behave like iOS apps.
|
| As a result, I have the strong impression that Android must
| just be awful stuff that you couldn't pay me to use.
|
| A false impression, I'm quite sure. If someone jumped through
| numerous hoops to make an Android app behave like a fake iOS
| app, I'm sure that would be at least as off-putting.
|
| I don't know whether it's arrogance (Google thinks that
| Material is just the bees knees and everyone should use it)
| or a deliberate attempt to show off the wonderful world of
| Google Services on Android, but either way, it leaves a bad
| taste.
| scarface74 wrote:
| People think that the only reason that Apple didn't allow
| you to choose your default apps for browsing and mail was
| because it was trying to be anti-competitive. Even though
| Apple makes no money from Safari or Mail.
|
| But it took Google _5 years_ to support split view for
| Gmail on iPad. There should be a minimum set of
| functionality you have to support to be eligible to be the
| default app that goes beyond what Apple requires.
|
| Edit:
|
| Yeah. I _hated_ iTunes on Windows and Safari for Windows
| during its brief existence. It's just as off putting seeing
| an Apple app on Windows that acts like a Mac app.
|
| Don't get me started about the old QuickTime for Windows
| back in the day.
| LockAndLol wrote:
| Or when you don't have a YouTube account, you just get pestered
| nonstop to sign up nowadays. I don't even know why. Just let me
| watch the fucking video!
| f69281c wrote:
| This laser focus on GET HIM TO SIGN UP puts me in a defensive,
| adversarial position. How about you leave me alone and let me use
| the service? If it's useful to me then I'll absolutely figure out
| how to sign up, and semantic nonsense like the fact the the
| button is titled "sign up" is absolutely not stopping me.
|
| What semantic nonsense like this WILL affect: you're creating a
| glut of disinterested users and firmly establishing your brand's
| identity as "one of those emails I have to delete every once in a
| while. I should cancel that thing or just filter it to spam". Now
| your metrics are blurry.
|
| >"Sign Up" buttons don't work because You're asking for blind
| commitment and not providing any value
|
| not solved by renaming the button.
| gogopuppygogo wrote:
| You can always buy a domain at http://domains.Google with free
| email forwarding then forward say samantha@mydomain.com to
| samantha@mailinator.com
|
| This gives you the ability to create accounts on sites to try
| them out, while being able to check emails without paying for
| email service or getting spam forwards to your real email.
|
| Makes it impractical for the provider of the service to block
| the forward without blocking Google clients.
|
| I used to just use Mailinator mx records but providers wised up
| and started doing mx record checks.
| anm89 wrote:
| Couldn't disagree more.
|
| In my experience buttons like "Start Drawing" are gateways to
| convoluted wizard signups in which I'm going to be asked to give
| out a bunch of informataion, possibly to find out 5 minutes in
| that whatever I wanted is beyond a pay wall or comes with
| conditions.
|
| If that button is integrated with on page content and not in the
| header and the flow feels natural than I'm much more open to it.
|
| If the rest of the site makes me want to sign up, then I'm going
| to look around for something clearly indicating that I can sign
| up or create an account.
|
| I will say that over years in web design I have found that my
| preferences correspond very poorly with average preferences but I
| personally consider what they are saying to be an anti pattern.
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| No kidding. I might 'sign up' after I've visited your page/ tried
| out your thing ten times on ten different days and found that it
| was worth my while. Likely not.
|
| I warned the encyclopedia salesman that I didn't need a reference
| work. He went ahead and pitched me. I humored him for a half-
| hour. Then I asked him, after he'd finished, if he believed me
| now. I'm still enjoying my time-investment.
|
| The bigger and more prominent the button, the more needy it
| looks. It's gotten to the point that when I see that I just close
| the tab.
| solarkraft wrote:
| I'm not sure. "Start Trading Bitcoins" is a bit generic and long,
| but may be fine when always visible. "Get access" may not be
| something one would even be required to sign up for.
|
| An advantage of "Sign Up" is it's consistency: My usual flow is
| that I'll look around the website to see whether it's something
| worth signing up for and when I finally decide to do it something
| like "Start trading Bitcoins" might throw me off.
|
| Here's another sign-up-related UX-crime however: Disrespecting
| your current users. A lot of services bundle their log in/sign up
| functionality and prioritize the "sign up" part so much that it
| becomes incredibly hard to find, especially when it's a fancy
| short sign up form that looks like one for logging in.
|
| It always sends a clear signal about how much you care about
| people signing up to your service vs. people actually using it.
|
| Tumblr is a great example of the opposite: They just present a
| "log in" page by default and make the "sign up" a little harder
| to find: This creates just a tiny bit of FOMO ("huh, how do I
| sign up? Is it invite-only?") and makes the user feel better
| about actually signing up.
|
| Of course Tumblr is a social medium for teenagers and not a SaaS,
| but in general anything one is expected to use at least semi-
| frequently should not be difficult to log in to. A good option is
| to put the forms on equal footing or just ask for the e-mail
| address and direct the user depending on whether it's already
| registered.
| arsalanb wrote:
| Often times if "sign up" feels like a blind commitment, it is the
| copy or narrative arc of the landing page that is poor and not
| just the CTA. Also, in some cases (eg: platforms that have
| multiple equally important but diverse features, like
| infrastructure as a service companies) there is not one clear
| "action" to prompt the user and "Sign up" feels a bit more
| neutral.
| Razengan wrote:
| All this is why I love Sign In With Apple.
|
| Some devs just aren't going to change, so this at least reduces
| the friction and lets me try their crap without giving them my
| email or any other info.
| RegW wrote:
| I didn't know "Sign in With Apple" existed - I wonder why?
| tester756 wrote:
| I'm avoiding shops that require me to sign in in order to
| purchase things
|
| Why would you need me to login in order to purchase thing? that's
| weird.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| Most sites have the pattern that you can buy as a guest, but
| the reason for creating an account is obvious: it massively
| reduces friction for repeat customers, which is good for
| customers and good for the business.
| simonw wrote:
| Past experience had shown me that if your your signup button is
| called "Get Started" I simply won't see it!
|
| My favourite example of this tiny anti-pattern is
| https://kepler.gl/
|
| They offer amazing open source software for GIS. You can install
| it from GitHub - but if you click the "Get Started" button they
| will drop you into a hosted experience (no signup required) which
| is just insanely useful.
|
| It took me far too long to figure this out, because I didn't
| think to click on "Get Started".
|
| (Even "start using" would have been a huge improvement)
| solarkraft wrote:
| Yeah, what the hell do "Get started" and "Learn more" mean? I
| have clicked these generic CTAs <a low single digit number>
| times in my life.
| ziml77 wrote:
| The other thing that would improve the chances of me completing
| the sign-up flow is not asking for more information than
| absolutely needed. If I log into a site with my Google account,
| it's because I didn't want to pick a username, add yet another
| password to my password manager, or give you my email address.
| RMPR wrote:
| > or give you my email address.
|
| I don't understand, if you sign up with your Google account you
| already give your email address no?
| ziml77 wrote:
| I actually have no idea. I would think so but I know I've
| been asked to enter it, at least on some sites.
|
| But if they do get the email address, it would be nice if
| Google gave them some sort of proxy address and required that
| anyone using Google sign-in accepted that address instead of
| requesting the real one.
| solarkraft wrote:
| Apple does this, Google doesn't. Signing up with your
| Google account may also allow the app to see way more than
| you might want - always check the permission request. "Read
| your e-mails" and "Post videos on YouTube" may well be in
| there.
|
| It would be a great move for Google to offer something like
| Apple's proxy sign-up.
| ziml77 wrote:
| The only way those permissions are sneaking by me is if I
| sneeze right when the page shows up so my eyes are shut
| and the movement causes me to accidentally click "allow".
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Perhaps a related gripe: "Sign Up?" with "Yes" and "Maybe later",
| that proceeds to ask me to sign up _every single time I go to the
| site_. How about a "Never" or "Stop asking" option?
| Wistar wrote:
| From a year earlier, and related:
|
| Ars Technica: "No, I won't install your app or subscribe to your
| newsletter."
|
| https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/the-u...
| WWLink wrote:
| I had to turn off notifications in my browser because every
| page would pop the question. Like. NO! Notifications are evil.
| samatman wrote:
| The number of websites for which I want notifications isn't
| zero.
|
| It's drastically smaller than the ones which bug me about it,
| and no, it doesn't include your regional news site or niche
| vertical blog, and it never will.
| Semiapies wrote:
| Especially random bloggers who think their "content" is so damn
| valuable that they pop up a newsletter subscription within
| seconds of the page loading.
| kevmo314 wrote:
| On the other hand, I do appreciate the relative consistency with
| "Sign Up". Because it's de facto standard, I know what to expect
| when I click that button. Sometimes I want to create an account
| and seeing a button like "Start Drawing" doesn't tell me what to
| expect.
|
| Some of the ones in the happy medium seem good though, like
| "Create a Free Account" or "Sign Up Free".
| tapland wrote:
| "Start Drawing" taking me to a sign up page is more likely to
| make me close the tab since I feel cheated. It's not called the
| standard "Sign Up" so I expect to be taken to something other
| than a sign up page.
| gk1 wrote:
| The sites referenced in the post have changed since 2014, yet I
| stand by the recommendation: Tie your offers and calls-to-action
| to what your visitors want.
|
| An interesting one is from Cloudflare, they have a call-to-action
| in their main menu: "Under attack?"
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| But see also this parallel comment from kevmo314:
|
| > I do appreciate the relative consistency with "Sign Up".
| Because it's de facto standard, I know what to expect when I
| click that button. Sometimes I want to create an account and
| seeing a button like "Start Drawing" doesn't tell me what to
| expect.
|
| I wonder whether it might be advantageous to include the same
| option twice in a menu, once as "Sign Up" and once as whatever
| you prefer.
|
| Though in the CloudFlare example, I'd tend to expect "sign up"
| to link to a page that was mostly about pricing, and "under
| attack?" to link to a page that was mostly about how CloudFlare
| helps with that.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I think the button coloring makes up for that. I've signed up
| for loads of services in the last month and the primary
| colored bright button being the CTA has been consistent
| enough for me.
|
| In any case, the numbers are the numbers. Whatever gets most
| people into an account is what it is. Many guys just fail
| that part: fill in a thing and we'll contact you. Yeah, no
| thanks. It's a $200 / mo product not a mortgage. Spare me.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > In any case, the numbers are the numbers. Whatever gets
| most people into an account is what it is.
|
| This doesn't really seem to respond to the idea that you
| can have more than one label present doing the same thing.
| gk1 wrote:
| In their case Sign Up goes to an account creation page, and
| Under Attack? goes to a sales form that (presumably) will
| page a sales development rep (SDR) to wake up, qualify the
| lead, and fetch a solutions engineer and sales exec duo.
|
| In any case, the implied lesson in the article is to A/B test
| different ideas and see what works, rather than sticking to
| the default.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| > You're not offering any value. Asking someone to "sign up"
| offers no help in changing the visitor's thinking from "Why
| should I?" to "I want this!"
|
| >Give, don't take. "Get Access" and "Sign Up" both lead to the
| same thing, but one makes the visitor feel they're getting
| something, while the other doesn't.
|
| I think these are really important points. Provide something of
| value to find loyalty.
| hyko wrote:
| Headline: Stop Asking Me to "Sign Up"
|
| Above headline: A banner asking me to sign up for a newsletter.
| rini17 wrote:
| This is mainly an UI issue. Browser vendors were disincentivised
| to offer straight authentication API both easy to implement for
| websites and easy to use for users, because it was seen as
| threatening to users' privacy.
|
| Maybe it is harder than I think, like, why can't the browser
| maintain an identity/profile and allow me to use it to one-click
| sign in to any website? But I don't see anyone really trying,
| only saved passwords hacks. Or it is supplied by Facebook and
| Google instead of your browser.
| manigandham wrote:
| Why is it a hack? Saving the password does make it 1 click now.
| rini17 wrote:
| But you are supposed to make a new password for every service
| when signing in. And fill in your name. Browser may detect
| there's registration form and autofill but it's ad-hoc, there
| isn't any standard for that.
| manigandham wrote:
| The standard is WebAuthn: https://webauthn.io/
|
| Otherwise there are HTML5 input field autocompletes which
| tell the browser what the field is for. Chrome is very good
| with this and you can fill out an email + new password in
| seconds.
| [deleted]
| ralfd wrote:
| Tja. Facebook and Google account login filled that void.
| netsharc wrote:
| And then Cambridge Analytica came along and abused the
| moronic security of Login with Facebook (fine, AFAIK
| technically it was quizes on the FB platform) and 4 years
| later we have... I don't know, people dying because they
| injected bleach into their body because their Dear Leader
| said "we should look into that"...
| grok22 wrote:
| Mozilla attempted to solve this using "Persona", but it never
| took off and they shut it down.
| https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Mozilla/Per...
| esprehn wrote:
| That does exist in the form of WebAuthn:
| https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Authent...
|
| There's also the Web OTP API: https://web.dev/web-otp/
|
| There's been quite a lot of investment in this space by
| browsers and also by the standards groups like the FIDO
| Alliance.
| devmunchies wrote:
| off-topic, but he shared a picture of an A/B test result. I've
| used several SaaS A/B test products but am not satisfied with any
| (built for marketers, not engineers)
|
| I just want a service where I can pipe all relevant live
| experiment data and it does the statistics to tell me the
| statistical significance and has some dashboarding. Anything like
| that exist? Self-hosted?
|
| I don't need something that injects itself into my site or even
| sets up the experiment.
| amelius wrote:
| Imho these should be handled by the browser, so the user can
| tweak their UI. Just like cookie popups, by the way.
| slap_shot wrote:
| Anyone else find this a bit pedantic?
|
| As a consumer of a website, I infer what service is being
| offered.
|
| I doubt I even bother reading the CTA buttons - I just know I
| need to click some things to start getting the service I read
| about.
|
| > They're ignored
|
| I don't ignore the button - it is the exact same pattern on every
| website. I'm just following a flow.
|
| > You're asking for blind commitment
|
| It's not a blind commitment. I want to try something, they need
| me to create an account. It's reasonable.
|
| > You're not offering any value.
|
| The button isn't offering the value - the rest of the website is.
| The button is just the next step in getting the value (see #1).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-26 23:00 UTC)