SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Monday May 28 2018, @04:07PM
from the all-his-books-are-banned-in-my-country dept.
from the all-his-books-are-banned-in-my-country dept.
Jakob Nielsen and his group have long documented that advertising in online media carries a cost in terms of usability. A recent longitudinal study quantifies the effect.
Summary: Increased advertising caused a 2.8% drop in use of an Internet service. The full magnitude of the lost business was only clear after a full year.
We have long documented that advertising in online media carries a user-experience cost:
- Users find many online advertising techniques highly annoying — that attitude has remained constant since we first reported it in 2004.
- Because online ads are so irritating, users have evolved banner blindness as a defense mechanism to reduce this annoyance. (Also a finding that has remained true for decades, meaning that it's not likely to change anytime soon.)
- Even worse (from a web-design perspective), ads poison the well for honest designers seeking to boost the visual design of useful page elements: anything with an overly fancy look may be unjustly taken for an ad and also ignored by users.
[...] Reference
Jason Huang, David H. Reiley, and Nickolai M. Riabov (April 21, 2018): Measuring Consumer Sensitivity to Audio Advertising: A Field Experiment on Pandora Internet Radio. Available at https://davidreiley.com/papers/PandoraListenerDemandCurve.pdf (warning: PDF file).
From: Annoying Online Ads Do Cost Business.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Annoying Online Ads Do Cost Business
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 45 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday May 29 2018, @05:40PM (2 children)
What might that be, for art direction among different devices? The problem here isn't one of positioning the image as much as choosing which image to deliver in the first place to a particular combination of display size, pixel density, media cost (metered last mile or not), and browser image format support. The <picture> element [caniuse.com] is intended to accomplish this but won't work on IE, Opera Mini, and Android Browser in Android 4.x, which total one out of nine page views (global support: 88.78%).
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday May 30 2018, @09:15AM (1 child)
And this justifies hundreds of kilobytes of JavaScript? Super Mario Bros was 32KB!
The modern web is a bloated monstrosity, let's not pretend otherwise.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday May 30 2018, @12:04PM
Actually 40 KiB; you forgot the CHR ROM.
But Super Mario Bros. is not responsive to different screen sizes (fixed 256x240 plane) or input modalities (keys vs. touch screen), not internationalized (the ROM contains only a partial Basic Latin font and only English text), not persistent (no save support until All-Stars years later), and not accessible to users with disabilities. Modern websites are expected to be all five.