It's easier to find examples where it was done poorly. Push notifications and vibrate stand out as particularly egregious examples. Users are pushing back against the way they've been implemented. Some good examples of research can be found onhttps://userresearch.blog.gov.uk/
-
-
Replying to @edent
That is the thing. Compared to most standard processes Web Packaging was super plugged in. E.g. Yahoo Japan has both been consuming and producing SXG since November and filed lots of bugs to make it better.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cramforce
OK, but what about end users? It's great that publishers and techies like us are involved. But what do users say when they encounter it? What problems and concerns do they have? We have to iterate design based on user needs and feedback.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @edent
Totally agreed. Of course, in this case the goal is to make the change something that users can't perceive over a normal navigation except through it being faster.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cramforce @edent
I've seen some techies imagining that users might be freaked out to learn that their bits were transferred via Google. The same techies do not seem worried about the bits being transferred via and modifiable by Fastly...
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @jyasskin @cramforce
I quite agree. Luckily, before making such wide ranging and fundamental changes to the web, we'll have conducted extensive research with real users to understand their needs. Right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think this case is strong for Portals and not strong for signed exchanges. For use case like SCG enabling HTTP over IPFS you'll have to ship and see what happens. One benefit of SXG is that it can be changed without breaking the web, & so real world usage can inform the spec
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
It's also unclear what end-user research we'd do re: SXG. Either you get a broken URL and broken origin behavior, or you get the right URL and the right behavior. Both behaviors are extant and there's clear preference for the latter.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @cramforce and
Re: Portals, unclear what user research we'd do because it's fairly versatile (by design). We can A/B a few experiences with partners but not the feature itself. There could be a lazy minima as bad as the door-slam push-prompting that we all hate, i.e. something to design away.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KenjiBaheux @slightlylate and
I'm begging you - walk down the corridor of Google, find some *professional* user researchers, & ask them how they'd test this. Get (non-Google) developers to test on, publishers, end users. But please please please test & publish. I'm going to bow out of this conversation now.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Is this re: Portals or SXG? For SXG, it isn't clear anyone has made a case for understanding gap. Agree re: portals, but they're orthogonal (and, if I dare say, not hugely consequential either way)
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate
For *everything* you do. What research have you done to show users want / need SXG? Which external publishers have you talked to to see if this fits their needs? Do devs understand your design choices? Users! Users! Users! I'm happy to send you a t-shirt, if that will help
pic.twitter.com/MOSEDEm3Vr
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.