I think that makes sense -- a lot of Google's (paying) clients have been using Adobe (formerly Macromedia) Flash to make ads for years; if Google wants them to adopt HTML5 technology they need to make tools that are as easy to use as Flash was.
Google itself doesn't scare me; it is really just team vs. team. I think we've got the best product and engineering expertise for this market. Clearly I'm biased :) so I'd encourage anyone to try Tumult Hype and let us know your thoughts (we've got a fully functional 14-day trial on the site).
While Google hasn't announced pricing, it is probably safe to say it is going to be free. This is a business for us, so we charge $29.99. I don't like competing against free, but that just means we'll be continually pushed to provide that much more value!
> Mac OS is close to nonexistent in that area in the rest
> of the world.
I guess you dont't live in the rest of the world. I am from a small exUSSR country in the Europe and while I would not claim majority for OS X but to claim that it is nonexistent is very wrong. My last company (Java/PHP/Frontend) was Mac-only. In the current company the majority is on Macs (that includes Android and WP developers).
Really? My last web developer position in Australia was in an office full of Macs. My web developer position previous to that was in New Zealand was in an office full of Macs. My current position here in the UK is in an office full of Macs. Every web development house I've ever worked for, contracted with or freelanced with has been in an office full of Macs.
Also Dutch here. Developers go with Windows if they do not get a choice; unfortunately, most major companies demand everyone uses Windows.
I'm fortunate to be working for a consultancy company that just gives everyone a budget to buy their computer. Most people have a Macbook, with the odd exception that simply has a hatred for Apple or can't get used to it.
I would argue that development tools are much better for OSX. It's like Linux, but usable. A lot of commandline tools just work out of the box under OSX, where you have to go through hoops, hope there's a port, or install a bash emulator under Windows.
I'm pretty sure the majority of digital artwork, both visual & audio, is done on OSX. I have never heard of any major company in this field that had its artists on anything other than OSX. Maybe linux for some render-farms or something, but the artists' primary workstation is macosx. Also, all the major digit-art tools work sooooooo much better under OSX, or even just under Linux.
Example, I've used Autodesk's Maya under windows and under Linux 64bit. The exact same machine, dualboot, into Linux to run Maya is like night & day. This simple little kitchen scene was too much for Windows to handle, would freeze up the mouse pointer while trying to rotate around and work on the models. In linux, silky smooth. Also, the audio-production software on mac is superior to anything ever. Avid ProTools, Logic Pro,etc. Imagine the kinds of scenes LucasArts/Pixar/Dreamworks/etc got going on. When you're project starts to get big and require more RAM to keep it all in memory and flowing well; Linux & OSX will beat Windows completely. Now I'm not going to put all the blame on Windows, perhaps AutoDesk and Adobe don't put as much quality work into the Windows versions. And why should they? Really, I see the Windows versions as just gateways for beginners and young people to pirate them and learn.When you get serious and it's your profession, you switch to OSX. Yes, I said it. Any serious digital-artist is on a mac. Good day sir!
Considering the very powerful, hardware accelerated 3D games that run smoothly under Windows, I would consider the possibility that if Maya cannot render a scene without freezing, maybe that is a problem with the software developers and not Windows.
I keep forgetting America is the only developed country in the world. I guess I'm so busy playing games on my PC and surfing the net on my HTC One, that sometimes I forget I'm poor and only bought these devices because I couldn't afford to buy Apple.
You really need to get some perspective about just how big the IT industry is outside of America.
In some circles yes, but theres alot of web developers that are still on Windows for whatever reason. I am from Germany and people here are less prone to brand marketing and i still see quite alot of people using Windows, even people i highly respect for their skills. Im mainly talking about coders though, not designers.
I will say here, that I am one of those people that do not like OSX. My main issues are getting it to behave with the muscle memory I have developed over years of use with windows and linux machines. Home and End key behavior, actually quitting an application when closed, full-screen apps (though I understand this is fixed in recent OSX builds), and other minor annoyances keep me from fully embracing OSX. I understand that these are personal preferences, and not problems with OSX for the most part.
On the other hand, I REALLY like the idea of an app and all its dependencies being installed all in one folder. That REALLY needs to happen everywhere. This would make migration between installs SO much easier, and would eliminate DLL hell (or shared library hell in the case of linux).
Exactly my thoughts. I use OSX alot for different reasons but i still think i am more productive on Windows/Linux. Keyboard shortcuts and behaviour is consistent as opposed to OSX where its kind of a pain.
I also dont like the dock, i like to have a taskbar with the open windows on each of my monitors which is no problem in Windows and Linux. I dont like the Menubar stuck on the main monitor.
As a web developer i really like the unix base of OSX for different reaons though and i need to use some software for game dev (Unity3D) which isnt available on Linux.
But i thought about running Windows for game dev/office stuff and Linux in a VM for web development.
It's Apple that made PC synonymous with Windows machines (with all their "Mac vs PC" ads). Yes technically speaking it's incorrect, but that's human language for you, it just happens. Sometimes the other way round, eg. walkman was once Sony's tradename, but eventually all portable cassette players were called so.
Not really, it actually comes from long before that.
I remember being a very little kid and buying shareware games with their "PC-Compatible" labels. At the time, that sticker actually meant "DOS Compatible", and being I just about 10 years old, I believed PCs and DOS were the only possible match, the same way my first MSX ran MSX-Basic and my cousin's Amstrad CPC ran CP/M. I didn't know it was even possible for machines to run different OSes. For that matter, I didn't even know what an OS was. I just knew different machines worked differently, the same way different TV sets worked differently.
So it's not just a matter of human language, it's a matter of intentionally confusing terms in favour of the market. Everybody knew there were other "walkmans" around. Not everybody knows there are other OSes.
Clearly Apple subscribes to this terminology, and I don't think it has much of an interest in putting forward the impression that Windows is the only option on PCs and concealing the existence of Linux.
I think it does. From the very beginning they wanted to sell computers to people by making them think they work like home appliances. If people knew computers are actually universal machines, then they wouldn't be as willing to pay more for the same components with a different brand printed on the machine's case, or a different software running in them.
Besides, that gives them a single competitor to fight against.
Is it really easier to face one big nearly monopolist opponent instead of two who're fighting against eachother? Also one important obstacle for the adoption of Apple products was the common notion that there's no plausible alternatives to buying a PC. That's why they invested heavily in sending the message of pluralism - "think differently" etc.
Sadly Google has more or less stopped supporting Linux on desktop since Larry Page came into office (Picasa and others...). Hardly surprising. Even though at Google everyone uses a flavor of Ubuntu for their desktops.
As long as we're doing shameless plugs: checkout my cross-platform product at http://tweenui.com/animator – it's for creating simple HTML5 animations (focus is mobile display ads) in the browser. You can download the result or publish to the cloud.
It may be tough, but porting your application to Windows would be a great idea and help you compete against Google in the long run. Good luck with it, and from what I've checked around on your website it seems like a great tool/competitor to Google!
(I'm on a Mac, still I have Windows machines and know a huge amount of web-developers who abide by Windows)
You might consider hosting that intro video on a better platform, buffered so slowly for me with a 120MB connection. Granted your site is probably getting hit by HN, but when attention spans are so short, many may give up long before I did.
Your App is also mentioned a lot in the world of InDesign users looking to create interactive e-books. The HTML5 import of InDesign works well Hype. Hype was mentioned just last week at the Adobe User Event I helped set up. These people are designers, not programmers and your App can really help them. #eyeopener
Hype is amazing tool - only took a few minutes to get up to speed on it. We built an educational touchscreen kiosk in it, and then were able to deploy on an iPad by just scaling it down and downsampling the bitmap assets. A really polished tool.
Don't blame Adobe if your Flash banners were crap. "Adobe software" is broad, covering a lot of ground. You're turning your back on the whole lot? Sounds irrational. Maybe check out this new Google tool, and see how you feel after about 10 minutes.
He isn't refusing to put time into learning Adobe tech because they produced bad code, he's refusing to put time in because Adobe knifed the Flex development community in the back. Then in the front. Then stabbed them in the back again.
No offence but I still make 5 figures using Flash/Flex/AIR for Fortune 100 companies.
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.
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 was easy, and you really could use anything you wanted for a backend (I've used Perl, PHP, and Java). Bidirectional data binding, an excellent widget library, and a lot of help from the default IDE (custom build of Eclipse) allowed me to build software, full stack, with an engineering team of 1 on a weekly release cycle.
I've spent more time debugging HTML5/JS/CSS than building entire applications in Flex. The AdvancedDataGrid component alone was worth the price of admission.
Totally agreed. The problem with Flex is it was designed for developer ease first and user experience second. Virtually every code example reimplemented a regular HTML form feature in Flash. You always knew when you hit a Flex app on the web because the first thing you'd see was a "loading" bar.
I used to work for Macromedia but I knew the moment Flex was released they'd taken the wrong turn from complimenting web standards to trying to build their own proprietary platform on Flash. To the user it was only marginally better than Java applets.
I think you mistake the intended audience of Flex. As a former Flex dev all of the apps I was involved with were for enterprise, building complex apps. None of the marketing or talks I attended from Adobe were around building your blog in Flex. People using Flex to make their "webpage" were indeed in the wrong.
Flex is still good for some $100-$120/hr consulting gigs on the side, mostly maintaining or changing something for a company who no longer employees a full time flex dev. Each year since Adobe "killed Flex" this hourly rate has gone up while the # of gigs has gone down. I would not, nor recommend, anyone start a Flex app today for a new project.
AngularJS is the closest thing to Flex that I've used, and only recently has tooling started to come close to what Flex had years ago.
JS/CSS is painful in comparison (esp when you consider large corps are still on IE6, 7, or 8), but still the right choice today for new RIAs. One can only hope the death of XP next year gets these corps to to do something...
Nothing of the sort, all in all, Flex is indeed a great platform. The sad reality is that it only runs on a crappy, obsoleted runtime (Flash) so it is not useful for most web development, but otherwise everything he says is true.
For a web app (RIA) I would pick Flex or Silverlight any day over the whole HTML mess if they would only run properly in all browsers, desktop and mobile.
>>>> Fireworks = Dead despite its powerfull features like jquerymobile skinning,project files as png files,games graphics, native app design, easily customizable through js.
Agreed. I started doing a lot of projects in Fireworks because of how powerful and flexible it is. I actually stopped using Illustrator and Photoshop and was using Fireworks exclusively. I was really pissed when they killed it after the Creative Cloud.
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 transition times and easing as well. Advanced mode also shows layers, which let you change where each element is in the stack of elements.
Please change the webpage to allow downloads in Linux (or any other OS) - many people would like to at least try it in WINE. Also, your "Available for Mac and PC" button is confusing - most Linux users run it on a PC.
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.
It is not the problem with people creating the ads that they don't want to create HTML5 banners. The problem lies with most media buying agencies that won't accept them for reasons like their system is not ready to handle this (HTML5) yet or the most heard reason that they want Flash banners even with old versions of Action Script because they seem harder to block by ad-blockers and thus think that more people will watch them. They forget the fact that most people are annoyed with them also ;-)
If you create a truly brilliant ad which is targeted to the right audience and let them do something with your brand inside the ad for example people are more willing to view them in my opinion in stead of just forcing them the same old banner over and over again only with a different brand in them..
>because they seem harder to block by ad-blockers and thus think that more people will watch them.
Do companies actually believe this? Flash is the easiest to remove of all ads.
"If you create a truly brilliant ad which is targeted to
the right audience and let them do something with your
brand inside the ad for example people are more willing
to view them in my opinion in stead of just forcing them
the same old banner over and over again only with a
different brand in them."
I have a lot of sympathy for the outreach companies trying to make advertising agencies behave. At some point, someone's neurons started firing and realized consumers had taken control over how they view media. Someone realized that eventually advertisements were going to be viewed of the users volition. Which meant they no longer could be deceitful, obnoxious, baiting, terrible, and rude. Or at least not transparently so.
Unfortunately the industry was built on the grounds that the users had no choice, so the notion of good advertising I think will never come. Old men in stuffy suits don't change unless they go bankrupt.
The ad-centric intent is clear and trying to cover it with "we don't see it this way" only further alienates potential users (and worse, makes fool of them). Be up front and honest about the product you make.
Thanks for the comment. Just out of curiosity, what does "iterate & push quickly" mean in your context? Some people use that to mean releasing every few hours; some every few months. What release frequency are you aiming for?
Apple has a somewhat similar tool called iAd Producer.https://developer.apple.com/iad/iadproducer/ (I believe you might need the free developer account to view the page, however.) I know you can create iBooks Author widgets and other HTML5 components that aren't necessarily ads. Even if Google's goal is the same as Apple's (i.e. creating advertisements), I think that Google's branding makes their tool a bit more interesting for someone not expressly interested in creating ads.
One of the other purposes of Advertisements are also to create impressions and Branding. You don't have to necessarily click every ad. :)
And with such visual tools ad making is very easy and reachable to all. A great project by Google. Kudos.
With Visual tools like this we can interact with more depth. And lets not forget this is free too.
They might bring better ad-making experience overtime with built in ad-templates.
All this will bring more Appealing ads.
And Eye catching ads serve as — Branding and Brand-remembering for Publishers, users notice them and remember(clicks not important in Branding)
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, including more complex shapes you can create with the Pen tool.
You bring up a great point though. In most cases, you probably don't need to draw shapes (and the overhead that comes with the runtime). If you want to rectangle elements on stage, a much better option is to use the Tag tool (the fourth tool from the top) and add HTML elements such as DIV and give them background colors and modify the border styles using the Properties panel.
We are working on our help documentation to educate our users in how to optimize their content in both size and performance.
Google Web Designer team - aka the ones tasked with making this application. ;o)
I understand you guys want to serialize data efficiently. But perhaps you can pretty print the rectangle information? It would make designs a lot nicer when version controlled (esp so if you sort the content consistently). Also, it would make manually meddling easier.
Great observation! We have had this discussion internally as well.
For now, we wanted to have a clear separation in the types of content the user is creating on a canvas, since canvas enables different types of content. And, in some cases, there isn't a 1-1 fallback between a canvas shape definition and an HTML element, e.g., an oval with inner radius.
However, we realize that in a lot of cases users just want elements that look like rectangles, and a DIV with certain styles will suffice. We will work to direct users towards that workflow in such cases.
The amount of code it generates for a page containing just a rectangle is not a good way to judge the tool. They may have some finite overhead because of the expectation that most users will be using the tool to create more complex pages. If the tool is good for the average ad-page that's created, while maintaining cross-browser compatibility, and bad for extremely simple pages, then who is to judge?
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:
That could be better, to be sure. It's for some reason part of a JSON-encoded string inside a JS object instead of just a JS object (hence the hard-to-read escaped quotes). And the properties could use defaults to spare us "strokeMat: null" and such. But it's not horrible.
A tool that designers can use to make animations in HTML5/CSS3 is desperately needed if we are ever going to move to a truly post-Flash world. We can't expect everyone to be an HTML developer, and achieving the same level of complexity and polish is extremely difficult when just working with code.
Uh-oh. So, while Frontpage just broke useragent stylesheets (all those sites setting the text-color, and assuming background was white, like it was in IE) -- this'll break what's left of the semantic web? I wonder how well google handles crawling these things...
The semantic web in the way that this tool breaks it has been dead since we had table-based layouts and div-hell further buried that notion. However, that doesn't mean that the semantic web is dead. I somewhat agree with Alan Kay when he said the web was built by amateurs . The problem with the original design is that only documents were considered, when there are actually two citizens: documents and the apps used to display those documents for different contexts and usages. The original design only considered documents in one static use case, a desktop browser. There are two levels of semantics: document semantics, which the web got right and that xhtml 2.0 might have made even richer, and app semantics that were completely ignored by the semantic web crowd to the point where the app people hijacked the plans of those pushing semantic documents.
HTML5 Twitter isn't a document. The 1 to 1 correspondence between the window object and the document object is all wrong. There should have been a 1 to 1 or 1 to many relationship between window and documents. When there is a 1 to many relationship the window object reflects only the semantics of apps and within it, there should be many documents, one for each tweet displayed by the HTML5 twitter app.
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.
I lost count of how many times I had to open a Word generated HTML document (by a regular Word user that though copying from Word and posting it in the CMS was a good idea) and clean it up by hand so it wouldn't break the page for browsers other than IE (even in IE it would break sometimes... surprise, surprise).
So yes, Sir. Yes, really.
HTML generators like this (or MS Word, or Dreamweaver, you name it) unfortunately are not optimized to do just the job they are used for. A good example for that is the one gave by our fellow commenter above. It adds a lot of useless code because it is simpler to do it that way. In the times where every Kb/s used to count, load a HTML page with 3 times the size it should be was a real issue.
Also, MS Word to HTML was the worst thing I have ever seen in terms of compatibility for other browsers. That to me does not sound like making the world a better place, sorry.
While editing a file, Google Web Designer uses -webkit prefixes. However, when you publish your content, the publish dialog allows you to specify additional vendor prefixes (or no prefixes) in the output so the content works in different browsers.
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 information.
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.
You're ignoring opportunity costs, even in your meatworld analogy. There's real dangers to staying at home all the time, from social isolation to diseases of inactivity. Similarly, without using the web and visiting new sites, you're missing out on a lot of opportunity to communicate, learn, and yes, buy things. It may well be a lot less safe to avoid those things in the longer term.
Personally I block ads because I value my attention higher than advertisers value it. There is always an adversarial function built into ads; the advertising wants your attention, if nothing else, while I am interested in maintaining my focus. For similar reasons, I disable auto-suggest in Google search, animated gifs in the browser, and I use flashblock in all browsers that support it.
Anything continuously animated on the page whatsoever - no matter whether it's an ad, a subscription div popup, a "read next article" popup link, or a sharing toolbar - I block them all with element hiding helpers.
Because the greatest risk to me in browsing a random site is getting distracted and sucked down some rabbit hole. I use all the tools at my disposal to eliminate visual distraction.
You're right, there's risk in any action. The solution is to accept the risk, not to harm others while trying to protect yourself.
By blocking adverts, you're harming the people who make the things you like, in direct proportion to how much you like their content. The more you visit their site, the more load you make them pay for without giving anything in return.
If you're okay with harming others to keep yourself safe, and harming your ability to consume additional content from the people you want to consume content from, then fine. Continue to block ads. But know you're part of the problem, and are being selfish.
Ads don't have special access but because of their deployment across many different sites they get to track a much broader amount of your web activity than any individual site which in turn makes them a bigger privacy threat.
I don't block ads but I do use NoScript which means I rarely see them. It is increasingly common for pages to load scripts from dozens of different providers and those sites I generally turn away from.
Privacy threat? Because they want to serve you content you actually like? No, I don't think you know what a privacy threat actually is, then.
If you want to hobble around the web like it's 1995, that's your business. If you want access to content that's paid for by adverts, however, you need to be counted. That's the only way that content will be produced at all. You're not only harming the content producer, you're also harming yourself by lowering the number of interesting things in this world.
The only relevant thing you've mentioned in your list is pop-up blocking, which is a subset of advertising (cookie blocking doesn't prevent impression and click tracking, and Readability has nothing to do with ad blocking, as the most common use case for Readability is after you've visited a page already).
Blocking one form of advert is not even slightly the same as blocking all forms of adverts.
There is an implicit social contract created when a content distributor attempts to monetize the content - you can only obtain the content if you go through the monetization strategy. Sometimes that's a price on the content, other times that's an advert.
Circumventing the monetization strategy is a statement that you believe you're entitled to the content without paying for it. Almost universally, you're not, and this entitlement complex is pervasive through Internet users. TV shows, movies, music, software, anything that's been given artificial scarcity is a target for this entitlement attitude.
For some content, this attitude doesn't hurt the content producer enough to be meaningful, or the content producer has adapted. This is almost universally the most valuable and previously established content producers. Your large game studios, your record labels, etc. For other content producers, however, those who aren't as well established, the harm is more severe. The independent web comic, the unsigned band, the budding writer, the local newspaper. These people suffer because Internet users think they deserve the content these people create without providing compensation, and subsequently, less content gets made, talent can't be developed, gifted individuals can't specialize, and the world is a less beautiful place.
So sure, we can continue to use ad blockers, but at what cost? It's not hurting U2, and it's not hurting J.K. Rowling, but it's hurting other people, people who feel the kinds of pain a 1.5% vs. a 2.5% CTR might bring.
> Blocking one form of advert is not even slightly the same as blocking all forms of adverts.
Well good, then you just misunderstood me. I'm asking for an animated HTML5 ad blocker to parallel a Flash blocker (or pop-up blocker, etc.) Not something that blocks all ads.
Although you didn't state it specifically, presumably you're ok with pop-up blockers. And therefore accept that it is ok for consumers to override the choices of bad web site designers in some cases, not merely choose to never visit the site again. Flash blockers did the same thing. Cookie blockers and readability are relevant for the same reasons. Consumers have a vote on how the web should be designed, too.
> Consumers have a vote on how the web should be designed, too.
Exactly the wrong-headed sense of entitlement I'm talking about. No, you absolutely do not get a say, whatsoever. You either get the product through the monetization scheme set up by the content owner, or you get no content at all.
Your foot stamping and insistence that people shouldnt have any control over site content does not infact change the technical reality that they do, being as its their client on their machine displaying what they tell it to.
Its better to just accept this fact and work with it than attempt to boil the ocean.
one might also ask about what kind of entitlement an attitude like yours is bringing to the table.
I guess the mindset comes from TV/Radio land where content is just dished up, and there is only one way to consume it, or you can stop consuming it.
It's probably more an issue of, we are in a difficult situation where some businesses don't know how to monetize outside of advertising (like google). And if everyone could block them, you'd effectively destroy businesses like that.
But on the flip side, the advert business model have gotten everyone used to 'free'. If google started selling "Search packs" where you get 100 searchs for $20, I don't think people would go for it.
The product server throws bits at you, and your software displays them however it's setup. It's not an entitlement issue, it's how you let any browser/server/thing consume bits sent by any server (instead of, say, requiring some sort of specific viewer).
Um. I get the content however I want. It's my computer.
If you send me some data. I can choose to view or ignore any of it. You have absolutely no stance to make me acknowledge all of it, or any of it.
If I asked for some data from your server and you sent it, you sent it. But I don't have to read all of it. Even the bits that make you money.
Further, some people choose (or more likely didn't know they had a choice) to make you money, if you want their money, in aggregate their wishes are something you are interested in. At no point does entitlement enter into this.
Advertisements have a measurable cost on me. I have limited focus, losing it is expensive to me. I've seen advertisements change the thinking and perception of my peers, and it scares the crap out of me. I am all for uplifting the community through my actions, but this cost is too great. I have an extreme distrust of advertisments anyway, I never click on them (except by accident, which was frequently btw, until I started blocking them), so even If I acknowledge them, I'm still not making you money.
and finally, this is just a side note which I think only applies to me, most content I consume only has advertisements introduced by the gatekeepers (or I pay for it). Youtube, blip, et al. I'd rather the producers just use distributed systems, but we can't always get what we want.
If the cost is too high, don't pay for it, but don't take the content as well. That's theft.
And I mean social contract as in a contract you agree to by simply being part of society that stands above law. Don't kill people, don't steal things, that kind of thing. Things you do and are therefore allowed to be part of society.
Society allows me to be a part of it because it has no objections to my behaviour. I actively tell the people around me I block ads. Therefore, if your social contract did exist, I would not be in breach of it.
Morals are subjective, the people that surround me believe there is nothing wrong with my actions, if your only standing point is that it's "morally wrong" then you have failed to convince me.
That, of course, is not your only point. You also believe that without the advertisements the content I enjoy wouldn't be produced. This argument has some grounds. The only problem is how actively degenerate ads are. I can outright improve almost all media just by removing them.
Let's say the "nightmare scenario" happens, and almost everyone blocks ads with ad block. Ad Block is running an initiative of acceptable ads. Ads that arn't decietful, distracting, or annoying (which, in my opinion, is a far more morally abhorrent act). So if everyone started using ad block. The world would actually get measurably better. Not worse.
One is answerable with fact. The other is unanswerable with anything but subjective opinion, and inevitably drags the ensuing thread into pointless back-and-forth over, in this case, particularly well-trodden ground.
And here we go over the well-trodden ground yet again. "Should" according to who? You? See the problem there? It's perfectly possible for other people to have equally valid moral positions as you while taking a different stance on this specific question.
Trying to dictate morality never ends well. Especially in cases like this, where the specific tech is not only possible, but also has unarguably legitimate uses, and is therefore pretty much inevitable. You just end up tilting at windmills, and the ensuing hot air back and forth just creates pointless noise, generally adding little to the discussion.
Readability is in Safari, so many (many) millions of users. There are extensions for basically everything, bookmarklets for everything else, and many news-reading applications use the same scripts to render their 'text' views.
And popup / cookie blocking has been standard (not just common!) for a while, so I assume you didn't mean that.
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.
One of our webdevs complained about some issue that was causing issues with our site in particular (regarding generic id names being blocked) and since then I've had several anecdotal instances where disabling adblock on sites seems to clear up nagging issues.
I haven't found a significant example of this, and I've been browsing with Adblock Plus for years. The only place I've seen issues with is some video streaming sites, when it interferes with streaming ads.
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 (Flash and Java are blocked by default.. Flash under the rubric of power conservation).
Maybe a crowd sourced blocker would be ideal for identifying divs in a site.
It would be a plugin that allows you to mark a spot on a page that is an ad and the plugin will record the very specific CSS path and hide it permanently for you and others that go to visit that site.
Maybe once you have a significant number of CSS paths you could do something with machine learning to identify the likeliness of a div containing an ad and block it when it crosses a certain degree of confidence.
Entitlement? He is entitled to not download and view content that he doesn't want to.
No one is obligated to alter their own behavior in order to sustain someone else's business model. How publishers make money is their problem to solve, and if they're publishing content on the open web that's viewable with web browsers, then it's up to them to decide how to deal with the fact that some web browsers aren't going to download the ads.
They have plenty of alternative options: they can block all of the content unless ads are downloaded; they can put all of the content behind a paywall, etc. But most websites don't employ these methods, and do leave their content accessible to people who block ads.
It is impossible to read and understand text when there is something moving in the corner of your eye. The human brain was trained to do that for millions of years of evolution on the savannah. The moving thing might be a predator...
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.
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?
I'm curious whether or not an embedded Esprima AST parser would provide a decent API for writing rules that detect undesirable code and rewrites them as no-ops.
It would be nice if this was also a social version of user scripts where I could visit all the user scripts that other users wrote that work on the page I am currently on. A button in the browser that takes me to all the user scripts that match the URL pattern for that page would be awesome.
And if you add Stylish on top you can pretty much make webpages look like you want them to with 2m work - I often end up fixing huge ugly headers and the like (i.e. text size/color) on blogs I frequent!
If they're embedded iframes, you should still be able to use e.g. adblock based on the URL. If not, you can probably go back to element blocking, same as now for static containers. If they're invisible / removed from the DOM tree, it should be a lighter weight browsing experience :)
My best suggestion is Adblock Plus combined with Element Hiding Helper in Firefox. Gives you a menu item that lets you select an element to hide, with a custom CSS selector. If you can find it with jQuery, you can probably hide it with that.
So, a website provides content to you without a membership free at the "cost" of also having ads on the page. Which you may or may not choose to ignore.
Your response to this is circumventing the ads and blocking them, denying the service which you use any revenue from you. Awesome.
How about if a site has intrusive over/under ads or otherwise intrusive behavior, you just don't visit it? And allow the sites you use that do ads without being jerks about it to actually continue to function and provide the service that you apparently value?
I'm not normally someone who crusades against ad blocking software, but your comment was extremely obnoxious and really annoyed me.
"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 bad precedent.
Currently we do only support editing document created in GWD, but we are outputting HTML, CSS and JS. We only add some author time data in order to enhance the authoring experience but otherwise everything else is just plain HTML and CSS. Our minified JS is only added for the Ads use case and to support the rendering of Canvas shapes.
Also we are still in Beta and we are working on adding many more features for our 1.0 release. Feel free to submit any features request through our public forums.
>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 bad precedent.
Adobe's Muse does a similar thing - if you publish to Business Catalyst using it it locks you into a proprietary "format" that forces you to stay on the platform and edit the site through Muse, or else it no longer 'compiles.'
Not sure where you got that info. Muse generates standards based HTML and CSS, you can take the HTML and CSS files and do what ever you want with them. Note, at that point your editing code, not visually designing. Even if you've published to Business Catalyst, you can just take your file and export to HTML and CSS later on.
Because of this it's worthless to me as is, a complete non-starter. What a ridiculous requirement, if I want to use this "web designer" I am supposed to rewrite or abandon all my previous work. Good luck getting anyone to use this.
It serves a specific purpose, the same as Adobe Edge Animate, they've just picked an awful name for it. If you scroll through the features, it's clearly targeted towards one particular type of content, not 'web design'.
Fantastic. I've been waiting for this to happen, and not the least bit surprised it's coming from Google.
Procedural graphic design is a fun exercise, intellectually interesting, and can have some amazing results, but the market for that type of design work is really limited.
This should help drive a real, solid, mass-designer-market adoption of the new standards. Cool.
However my point still stands. Windows is really behind Mac in regards to development software (or any type of software in general). Maybe I'm underestimating the Windows ecosystem, but that's been my observation over the years. I'd like to be proven wrong.
Macaw seems like a tool for web designers who are afraid of code. If you want to be a web developer, use a text editor. If you want to be a good web designer, use a text editor and learn Sass or Less. If you want to be a mediocre web designer, use whatever.
I'm currently using a text editor (Sublime Text 3). And I like it but it have its own challenges. I don't want to be a web developer, I'm just doing this as a hobby and to design/maintain my personal website. So it doesn't really matter if I'll be a mediocre web designer or not.
You can color me skeptical until we see actual HTML5/CSS spit out by this - regardless of who writes it, I'm always doubtful of the efficacy of any automated/wizard-driven code generation in the general sense.
But it's called "Google Web Designer", so many of us web developers probably thought we were the target audience. I first thought it was a Dreamweaver competitor with better support for JS libraries and HTML5, which would be great.
Instead we have "Google Ad Designer" targeted at designers and marketers. OK, I was still interested at least to play with it for a while and see if I could recommend it to my designer friends, but no Linux support and worst of all, they use PC as a synonym of Windows and Mac as a synonym of Mac OS X. Sorry, but this isn't the 90's anymore, go back to your time machine.
So, I agree I'm not the target audience, but you have to admit the announcement can be perceived as misleading and off-putting.
I am, mostly because it's wrong and helps in perpetuating misconceptions. I use a PC with Linux, you can use a Mac with Windows or Linux (and others), and nowadays Macs are PCs with a prettier design, so saying "PC and Mac" is completely meaningless. It's like saying "Mobile phones" when it only works in Android. You then have to take the time to explain to normal users why it doesn't work in their iPhones or Blackberries.
I think this metonymy helps reinforce the idea that there isn't a conceptual difference between hardware and software, or that they are inherently a single integrated product.
If you value various aspects of keeping hardware and software separate, then not reinforcing this association -- and instead trying to draw the distinction -- is valuable.
A lot of people in a discussion like this will point out that many computer users don't know what an OS is in the first place, or don't draw any distinction between the computer, the OS, and the browser. That's true, but avoiding using the individual proper names of these things makes it even more true!
It depends on the kind of designer we are talking about, it's not all about graphics design. Web designers (you know, the ones probably targeted by this software) don't need to depend heavily on Adobe applications and can comfortably use Aptana Studio for web design on Linux.
However, I was referring to myself. I was interested but couldn't use it, so I won't recommend it, as simple as that. I think software relies heavily on network effects, and many possible early adopters probably are running Linux too.
In my experience designers tend to be quite conservative in their choice of tools and probably won't ditch Flash just because this application appeared today. Developers are usually much more keen on trying out the latest tool, it's part of the trade.
In my opinion, it's a mistake to imply "Get the hell out of here, you're not the target audience" when you probably depend in these people to recommend the software to your target audience.
Lack of support for Linux is a consequence of not being a webapp, and that is what I really don't like (even if this was supported on Linux, OpenBSD and Solaris). Is expecting that Google can deliver cutting edge web-based apps really weird?
While everything has its tradeoffs, we went with this approach because:
- We have better control over how we express the DOM to the browser. There's plenty of browser bugs or incompatibilities which sometimes require us to on-the-fly change the DOM structure or which properties we are using.
- The user could easily bork the output so it could not be read back in
- No tool will ever produce output that will appease everyone :)
So it isn't that our output isn't very clean (in fact I'm quite proud of the runtime and how we've been able to add features without increasing bloat); it is that edits are meant to happen from the app itself.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I do in fact agree it is probably unreasonable for people to expect automatic code generation to be hand-editable without disturbing the machine-editable workflow, but it is something that comes up a lot.
I see that Google's tool also seems to produce rather inscrutable output (see my edit to my original post). This does sound like one of those really hard problems where is pretty much impossible to balance the needs of the machine-modifiability with human-readability.
Yes, we ultimately felt it was a fool's errand, especially because we're a startup with limited resources so we need to focus on the right problems. When we launched version 1.0 long ago it seemed like this wasn't necessary for a "minimum viable product" considering we're targeting graphic designers who might not have as much coding experience anyways.
There hasn't been much that's swayed us otherwise -- I think it was the right call.
You know what would be useful? An app like this from Google that outputs Google index-optimized code for SEO purposes.
In one fell swoop Google could educate the masses as to what search engines consider "good" code and simultaneously destroy the "machine-gun-the-fish-in-a-barrel" approach marketing people use for SEO.
Instead, we get Adobe Motion 2.0 HTML5 Street Fighter Edition Now Featuring Blinky-Movey-Thingies.
As an engineer it's interesting to be on the receiving end of software replacing a bit of what you do. I suppose the market will always incentivize replacing expensive labor (high wages for developers cut both ways).
Granted, there have long been wysiwyg editors and this is a relatively simple part of the job of a web dev, but it's just another example of software eating the world.
First I want to thank you all for taking the time to check out Google Web Designer and giving us your feedback! Keep it coming!
Over the last 24 hours we have received a ton of great feedback. One of the biggest questions/comments that I keep hearing is in regards to the broadly scoped name, "Google Web Designer". We chose this name intentionally. We know that it is a lofty name, but we have big plans on living up to it.
It is true that in our beta offering there is a strong focus on rich media. With the proliferation of mobile and Google being a huge player in advertising, we think that rich media was a solid first use case to tackle. Over time we plan on growing our tool set and functionality so that you can create any web content that you so choose.
This is just the beginning. You have the ear of the entire product/engineering team and with your feedback we hope to shape this tool into something special.
I think this looks like a great tool. I can almost imagine this being built 100% for ads, and then someone higher up at Google saying "Wow, this thing is so powerful it could build websites" and then it morphed into this existence. Just pure speculation but it's a little weird to call it Google Web Designer when everything else puts ads front-and-center.
All through the 90's web sites that let you build web sites were quite the rage, and then pagemaker/frontpage/et alia seem to just take over. Not entirely sure why but they did. Now here we are 17 years later doing it again.
I spent a number of years "liberating" my data from FrontPage by basically creating a new CMS and sucking it from html scrapes into a modifed version of markdown. I hope that Google learns from that experience and always provides for an 'easy' way to liberate your content from their tool so someone doesn't get stuck.
I'm happy to see this tool because we do need to get those ad developers/designers (whoever they are!) to stop producing output which consumes high cpu. But if this doesn't fix that problem then we're spreading the issue to our non-flash tablets and mobile devices, which could be a painful change from the static ads we currently enjoy on those devices.
However, I'm disappointed to see that this deals with fix-sized units exclusively. The web is supposed to be fluid, ads and other content should be encouraged to be percentage-width based, or at least responsive to different screen sizes and layouts. This tool produces fixed-size ads, when they could have used it to encourage a big change towards responsive advertising.
It says available for the PC. the button is grayed out for me? Surely people as bright as Google knows PC != Windows? Surely PC means PC running mainstream operating systems like oh I don't know...Linux?
Ugh, glad I have a grip on HTML/CSS now and dont have to rely on tools like this or Dreamweaver.
I think Dreamweaver actually helped me code better because after class I would always work at cleaning up the shoddy Dreamweaver auto-generated code. Kids kept wondering why I always passed validations after writing code, I stopped using Dreamweaver unlike everyone else in that class.
As someone who works in a museum designing web and html5 exhibit media, it makes me a bit sad that upon opening all the defaults are specific to creating advertisements. I know that's the business that Google is in, I just wish they would stop pretending that they have the same goals as their hypothetical "World History Museum."
I just started playing around with it. It has a very simple learning curve. Within 10 minutes, I was comfortable using the application.
I would love to see some figures on cross-browser compatibility. It's an excellent tool for making HTML5 animations. This is my only apprehension right now.
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.
The poster definitely meant free-as-in-speech software. Nevertheless, I'm unable to test it right now since it is not available for desktop Linux.
I take it from a few comments here that Google Web Designer uses Chromium Embedded Frame. I have ported Adobe Brackets, which uses Chromium Embedded Frame too, and it's not too difficult. Hardly a day's work. Is there a date when Google Web Designer will be available for desktop Linux?
I haven't been able to find a link to download the source code, and the web page doesn't mention the license anywhere. I think you may have misinterpreted "free software". In any case, thank you for trying to help.
I started with DW back in 1999 as a crutch while I learned markup and styling. Gradually phasing out the visual editor over the years I got so accustomed to the code editor (highlighting/shortcuts) that I still use (and prefer) it.
DW got/gets a bad name because of it's visual editor (and therefore lower bar of entry) but it's no better/worse than any other visual editor.
You never used Dreamweaver in your life. It has a great template system which make it easy to generate static websites, live inspection with an embedded webkit engine , and a very good style manager. Dreamweaver is definetly productive when it comes to integration or prototyping.
That's why google wanted flash on Android at first place , ads+drm. Google always like flash unlike Apple and even ship with it's own Flash plugin.
But Adobe decided Flash was too expensive to maitain on mobile and fired 700 employees and outsourced the rest of the Flash team to india. The remaining employees are now working on Bracket (...). And Sencha is more profitable than Flash division at Adobe.What's left of Macromedia? nothing, They should have stuck with Livemotion and Golive ... lol
The result is that the last version of Flash (CC) has less features than the previous ones ( some drawing tools gone...)
so why did they make this? flipping thru the help docs, seems to be for creating responsive ads (not a surprise I know) -- so they want to kill off flash but maintain the animations and flash ad style things out there for youtube and what not?
Ads with animations are more profitable because more people click on them. Since flash is dying, they want an alternative that runs anywhere, so they can display interactive ads anywhere and profit more.
Be sure to stick with your courses. Understanding the underlying technologies are more important than familiarity with toolsets that come and go. This is just the next phase of a long lineage of web design tools including Hot Dog, Homesite, FrontPage, Dreamweaver, etc.
1. The Google web Designer is not bad.
2. It't more intuitive than Dreamweaver--by far.
3. I think they should deemphasize the Ad functionality.
4. They should offer a few basic templates--maybe be I missed them?
5. Templates were important in my learning curve. Trying
to memorize WC3 examples didn't work for me. Experimenting
with a template helped me a lot--plus I could put up rudimentary websites quick.
6. If anyone from Google stumbles upon this; remember you
have multiple generations of people out there that would
love to learn how to put up a web page.
7. Put up some video tutorials. You are hemoraging money,
but I've noticed you seem to depend on customers to post
"how to videos", or maybe hire some out of work 30-65 year
olds to produce the videos. Some of your older users know
how to communicate without using too much tech lingo--isn't
that the purpose of ths Editor? If their videos do the
trick pay them, and don't expect them to move to your campus-let them work at home. Working at home has some benefits.
It's quite easy to place things and the animation is pretty straightforward. What is extremely painful is how things behave when you click on things...like, it took me some time to figure out how to edit a Text box that I placed, and also how to change it from a paragraph to a headline.
In terms of usability, I can't image how this will be productive for anyone, including newbies. In the medium to long term, most people would be far off better learning how to do basic HTML in a text editor, GUI be damned here.
You know what this looks?
Chromium OS will be integrated in Android, as a HTML5 application framework.. running side by side with the Dalvik apps..
So they are investing in productivity tools for people to create apps for this new platform that will make it soon in the Android platform
This is a nice strategic move from Google.. since their ecosystem(the one they profit over) are the web.. the app ecosystem may be a shot on its own foot, since they cant control the cloud consume behavior by the device owners on apps in the same way they can on the web "platform".. (like the android forks from amazon and possible other big players)