Medford website designers
Hello and welcome to this website designers Web Designer Medford video tutorial.
I’m Owen Corso from Google.
And today, we’re going to build a rich media expandable creative with video.
Let’s start by selecting file, New File.
This opens a dialog box where we will set up our ad.
First, let’s make out high of project.
We have four options– The default is Display & Video 360so we will leave that as is.
How to Be Comfortable in the Dentist's Chair
OWEN CORSO: Hello and welcometo this Google Web Designer video tutorial.
I'm Owen Corso from Google.
And today, we're goingto build a rich media expandable creative with video.
Let's start by selectingFile, New File.
This opens a dialog boxwhere we will set up our ad.
First, let's chooseour environment.
We have four options-- The default is Display & Video 360so we will leave that as is.
Next, we can selectthe type of ad.
We want to make anexpandable, so we select Expandable on the left.
Next, we can set upour ad's dimensions.
We are building a 320 by 50that expands to 480 by 250.
So I will make those changes.
We then assign thecreative a name.
I will leave my Save ToLocation as the default, and leave the animationmode set to Quick.
Once I'm happy with mysettings, I click OK.
Google Web Designer creates theinitial pages of the ad for me with the dimensions I defined.
The collapsed page alreadycontains a Tap Area event to expand the ad and an expandedpage with a close tap area to collapse back down.
It also has added all theinitial code needed for the ad to talk to the ad server andcollect tracking metrics.
Those metrics are builtinto the components, and we can assign uniqueidentifiers to each component as we go.
So now I can start adding thegraphic elements I've already prepared.
I drag a backgroundimage or initial ad state and drop it onto the stage,then align it to the stage, and layer it behind the taparea by sending to back.
Now, let's switch toour expanded page.
Let's add a background imageby dragging my image file to the stage.
I can also add abutton to the stage by dragging theTap Area component.
Let's make a backgroundexit tap area.
I will size, align it, and thenI will give it a unique name.
To add functionalityto the button, I will add an event using theplus button in the event's toolbar.
This brings me tomy Actions panel, where we assignall of the metrics to our ad instead ofcoding them manually.
I'm going to selectthe tap area I just named BackgroundExit from the list.
Choose Tap Area, Touch/Click as the event.
Google Ad, Exit ad.
On the Receiver panel,I select gwd-ad.
Lastly, I give it an exitidentifier and a destination URL.
For more in-depth detailson the event model, check out the Eventsand Metrics video.
Next, let's add avideo component.
You drag it to the stage,then give it a name and size it properly.
Tell it how to behave.
I want it to autoplay and start muted.
And you target thevideo file here.
This component has allof the metrics built in, so you can avoid handcoding them in the ad.
Let's preview our ad.
On page load, we seeour collapsed state.
When we click, the adexpands to our expanded page.
Our video behavesas we told it to, and clicking on the backgroundexits to our landing page.
Once the ad is built andfunctioning as you want, it is ready to publish.
Go to File, Publish.
And you're presentedwith a few options-- Publish Locally,to Google Drive, and, finally, toStudio.
Let's choose Publish Locally.
This is where you cancontrol how the ad is output.
For instance, youcan add polite load to the ad, which delays thead load until after the page content loads.
You can also set itto minify the code and add browserprefixes automatically.
We'll leave all thesesettings as to the default.
Click Publish, and Web Designerwill wrap up all of your files in a nice little zipfor uploading to Studio.
Now, let's testit out in Studio.
Let's make a newcreative of expanding type.
Drag the zip file to uploadour creative to Studio.
Now, let's preview our creative.
As you can see, I can expandthe unit, play the video, and trigger thebackground exit we added.
You can see these eventslogging to the output console.
And that's an overviewof Studio integration features in Google Web Designer.
Medford website designers
Next, we can select the type of ad.
We want to make an expandable, so we select Expandable on the left.
Next, we can set again ad’s dimensions.
We are building a 320 by 50that expands to 480 by 250.
So I will make those changes.
We then assign the Medford creative a name.
I will leave my Save ToLocation as the default, and leave the talk about set to Quick.
Once I’m happy with my settings, I click OK.
Google Web Designer creates the initial pages of the ad for me with the dimensions I defined.
The collapsed page already contains a Tap Area event to expand the ad and an expanded pageMedford with a close tap area to collapse back down.
What Your Dentist Can Tell You About Dental Braces
WEB DESIGN IS BROKEN.
It's just crumbled tosand in your hands and it's just disappointing.
Today we are going to talkabout budget that the big one: budget budget BUDGET! It is such a huge topicbut I'm finally gonna lay down the final word on budget, specifically how much youshould spend when you're buying a website.
I've got the answer for you.
Youready you ready for it? 500,000 pounds a week! There we go! Did it!(that was easy) I'm out.
See you later.
(web design isfixed) No.
If you do have five hundred thousand a week to spend on a websiteyou should get in touch with me.
I think we could work with that.
Budget it's sucha huge topic no one's really kind of tackling the answers of a few there's afew articles on the internet that are like "well if you want this type ofwebsite you should spend around this much and if you want that type ofwebsite you should spend around that" Much it really comes down to a fewfactors namely your attitude towards risk, whether you're whether you'recoming from a gain or a pain perspective and how much you actually stand to makeout of it.
What you're really doing is investing in a website: you're lookingfor it to create a return you want it to be putting money back into your pocket.
If you don't want it to do that then it's only gonna be acting detrimental,it's only gonna be taking money or reputation or whatever out of yourpocket and you really need to rethink the reasons why you're doing this in thefirst place.
Go back to one of my previous videos wherewhat where I ask you the question why are you doing this in the first place.
Sothe first thing that we've got to understand when we're asking thequestion how much does a website cost, how much do I spend on a website, we'vereally got to appreciate that all you're doing is you'retrying to give yourself what they call an 'anchor' This is literally just apsychological stake in the ground so that your brain can go "okay well I'vegot a point to start from" It really doesn't matter what that number is butit becomes your anchor: the first price you hear becomes your anchor and aroundthat point you will base all value judgments.
So be careful when you'reasking this question because you might end up with another massivelyoverinflated number that completely puts you off of even going down that routewhen actually you could have got something that worked for you at areasonable price, and if you get a number that's too lowyou're gonna look around and think "hey well this is all way too expensive" andnot actually start engaging in the conversations to help you understand thevalue that it could bring there is.
Another thing that you need to be reallyaware of when you're trying to create a budget for our website and that is thatyou like me like everyone else on the planetwe are naturally risk-averse: yeah we have loss aversion.
Most people agree withthe statement that "it is better to not lose five pounds than it is to find fivepounds" It's the same five pounds! It's weirdwe're hardwired to avoid losses.
We try and keep what we have and thereforewe're less likely to risk that in search of future gains so this means thatyou're naturally going to be skeptical about the gains that you can create witha website you're naturally gonna want to spend as little as possible andthat means that you're at a risk of actually under investing when you'rebuying a website Yourisk of under-investing because you're averse to loss.
I'm exactly the same: theamount of times that I've bought things that I need on say Amazon and gone forthe cheapest possible one because I wasn't entirely sure if, you know, if itwould bring me the thing that I was looking for - the reality is that I endup spending double because, you know, buy cheap buy twice.
But you can actuallyunder invest and if you do especially in something like a website it's like underinvesting in in your team member: if you if you hire a new salesman andyou under invest in him well then he's not gonna do as good a job as hepossibly could do if you're picking if you're picking your teammembers based on the salary that they're willing to accept then you're probablyunder investing and you're not actually realizing that if you spend a little bitmore you can get like disproportionately larger returns.
The third thing that youreally need to be aware of but before you start thinking about your budget iswhether you're coming from a pain perspective or a gain perspective.
Areyou looking to this website to help you reach new markets to help you, I don'tknow, dominate the competition; to help you boost sales/Is it a gain thing? Are you launching a new business a new product? Or are youlooking at it from a pain perspective? Are you looking at it and thinking wellhow can I use this website to help me automate things, cut costs, reduceoverhead - things like that.
Maybe you've got a whole bunch of bad reviews on yourexisting website and so you're almost being forced by your customers forced byyour marketplace to up your game what you're really trying to do there ismanage losses.
You approach these.
you can buy the same thing in two different waysand your experience and therefore what you're willing to spend completelychanges depending on whether you're coming from a pain or a gain perspective.
The final line on it is using an analogy that we use sometimesit's based around cars basically.
Are you are you just trying toget to and from work or are you trying to win Formula One the Formula One GrandPrix you need very different types of cars to be able to do each of thosethings.
There's no point in buying a Formula One car because when you pull upin the Sainsbury's car park you're gonna have nowhere to put your shopping.
Likewise there's no point in buying a Fiat Panda and taking it to the track.
Sothe better you can understand what type of race is that your business is tryingto win, or what type of things your business are trying to do with a websiteand what that's worth to you is the better you're gonna be able to startcreating a realistic budget and get a return that's more in line with yourexpectations.
My name is Aaron Taylor I'm helping youto make better decisions and have better conversations when you're buying awebsite.
till next time.
[singing] I fixed webdesign, said I fixed web design.
Latest Dental Implants To Be Used
LYNN MERCIER: Thetruth is, like, if we want to evolve thematerial design system, we need to be able tobuild on top of the code, and each layer ofthat code matters.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU:The conveyor belt is-- designer works onsomething, developer takes it, and developer screams becausethere was no conversation.
I think that's one ofthe biggest challenges.
[MUSIC PLAYING] One of the challenges inthe beginning with material on the web was there's so manydifferent implementations.
Again, the singlesource of of truth, so you had Angular material,you had Polymer, you had MDL.
How have you found solvingthat single source of truth? LYNN MERCIER: Yeah.
Originally we had a unique teamof developers in both Android-- I'm sorry-- Angular,and Polymer, and all these otherweb frameworks sort of building their ownimplementations in material design.
But we found that we couldn'tkeep that going at scale.
Like, we were iterating onthe material design system so quickly, and we couldn'tkeep a single source of truth with these othercomponent libraries.
It's not a perfect solution.
We're still working onmaking it faster and better, but we've foundthat that creates these sort of componentsthat look like they belong in the framework.
So any framework developerwho's working there, they look seamlesslylike they're a part of the environment.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: The onething that we struggled with with MaterialDesign Lite was there was a lot of blackmagic going on in the DOM.
So you check DeveloperTools, and there'll be, like, these random elements.
And that was, like, anopinionated decision so, you know, how do you go aboutdeveloping a new framework where you have to have anopinion-- there has to be, like, this is the baselineof what we're doing-- without impeding on, like, whatthe developer just wants to do? They just want this componentto work, or this widget, or whatever.
LYNN MERCIER: Yeah.
I try as much as possibleto avoid black magic.
And, like, whenever I'mreviewing any code that any of the designers on myteam are writing, we, like, try and avoid anything that's-- maybe it's a little hack,and it makes it slightly more performant-- butthe truth is, like, if we want to evolve thematerial design system, we need to be able tobuild on top of the code, and each layer ofthat code matters.
So we try and, like, steeraway from any black magic and just have thisone source of truth that works with all thecomponent libraries as much as possible.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU:In terms of, like, working withexisting frameworks, what's the relationship there? Because, like, React isa thing-- you have to-- it's the real world, right? LYNN MERCIER: Mm-hmm.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: Or likeWordPress is a thing.
Like, you have towork in that world.
LYNN MERCIER: Mm-hmm.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: So theremay be certain things that you can or can'tdo as a result of that.
LYNN MERCIER: Yeah.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: Like, formaintaining a framework where-- it's not Android.
It's not, like, a single-- LYNN MERCIER: Yeah.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU:--you have-- it's, like, the web is allabout relationships between different code bits.
I mean, how do you manage that? LYNN MERCIER: It gets reallytricky and really funny.
So we tend to prioritizethem in terms of what developers are already using.
So React is a great example.
There are a ton of codebases already in React-- it's super-popular.
So we want to prioritizethat one first, which is why we're making anMDC React library for React in particular.
But then there'sother libraries, like Angular andlike Polymer that we want to start using as well.
But we tend toprioritize them, again, based off whether or notdevelopers are already using them.
In terms of, like, keepingall that functioning-- and sometimes you endup, like, one framework wants it to do it oneway and another framework wants it to do another way.
It's just constantlycompromising.
Like, we work with thesedevelopers on the Polymer team, or we, like, talk tothe React community and try and figure out what'sthe right way to figure it out.
And we just sort of settleon the right compromise and stay there.
We do it as well with browsers.
So for example, we tendto develop first on Chrome because it's kind of thebest, and it works nice, but we have to support Safari,and Firefox, and Edge as well.
So we tend to testIE at the very end.
And we want it towork, but there's sort of, like, gracefuldegradation sort of things that happen.
As long as that happens, like,carefully and gracefully, then it tends to be OK.
And I think we do the samesort of thing with platforms.
You know, maybe itdoesn't perfectly work in everyplatform but as long as we can kind ofgracefully degrade that component in thatsituation, it'll work out.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: Yeah, Iknow the BBC have, like, a term that's calledcutting the mustard.
So basically, they willhave, like, a baseline where things have to work.
LYNN MERCIER: Yeah.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: Like, withthis, and if it doesn't work, or it doesn't supportthis technology, they're gonna say--you know what, you're not going to getthese experiences that we're designing.
I mean it-- how would youfeel about that as a concept? LYNN MERCIER: Yeah, we'vehad to use that already.
So there's newthings coming out-- material designed around shape.
And on the web platform,no matter what technology you're in-- like, what webplatform or what browser you're in-- rounded corners are really easy.
Like, cut-off corners? Impossible.
Just straight up impossiblewith the existing technology.
And so we kind of had to goback to our material design team and say, like-- look, we can update theCSS spec today in 2018, and then three years fromnow, our children's children will, like, have thisfeature, but we're not going to be able toimplement it right now.
So there are some featureswhere you just kind of have to draw the line and say,we can't do this feature without it beinga confusing story, without it being some sortof hack that no one would be able to use.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU:So how about SVG? I mean, I suppose whenit comes to animation, the challenge of SVG isthe performance 'cause-- LYNN MERCIER: SVGs, and thenthe shadows on top of them, and the scroll performanceunderneath those SVGs-- by the time you, like, transportall the browsers and all the situations wherethat component would be, it gets reallyconfusing quickly.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU:And very complicated.
LYNN MERCIER: Yeah,very complicated.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: That'squite interesting, because the conveyor belt isdesigner works on something, developer takes it, anddeveloper screams because there was no conversation.
I think that's one of thebiggest challenges developers face because, ifyou just talk to me, then I'll be able to explain,especially for designers who have no coding experience.
And I know we've spokenbefore, and you've mentioned stress testingthe design, which is a new concept for me.
LYNN MERCIER: It's my concept.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: How doesthat work, where you're stress testing the design? LYNN MERCIER: Imean, I think there's a limitation inDesigner Tools that make them want to forceeverything to sort of this pixel-perfect mock.
And it's gorgeous-- itcreates some gorgeous assets, but it doesn't always workin a real-world application.
And a developer'sjob is to create something that works in areal-world application, right? Ours is the stuff-- thecode that's running live.
And so many problems come froma design being pixel-perfect for one language, one screenwidth, one set of content.
And when you goto build that, you can build sort of adummy site quickly, but once you start populatingit with real content, all these problems come up.
And I think most designers,if you go and talk to them and say, like-- hey,I have this problem.
They'll help you.
They'll, like, show youhow to change the design and tweak it in this situation.
Like, they're very receptiveto that feedback-- they want to make their designs better.
But if you don't knowwho your designer is when you have thisproblem, then you just have this bug that says-- doesn't work in German.
Like, what do you do? You have no idea how to fix it.
So yeah, I think this conveyorbelt problem of designers who sort of, like,design something but then leave the projectand don't collaborate with the developers asthey're building it, it makes it reallydifficult for the developers to make the productbetter over time.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: So how do youthink designers can actually improve their process to makethat relationship better? Or more, is it reallydown to the most obvious? You just need to pairprogram, or pair together.
You have to talk to the person.
That's really the bestway to do it, so like-- LYNN MERCIER: Thatis the best way.
I mean, I think that can bereally difficult in certain-- if you don't have enoughtime and resources, sort of dedicate, like, one person,one designer, and one developer to every single feature.
I think there's waysin the middle to do it.
So for one, make sure thatyou know each other's names.
Like, if you'reremote, make sure you know how to deployyour code somewhere to staging so yourdesigner can work with it, and make sure your designerhas a way to send you, like, iterations on mocks.
Another sort of quick andobvious thing, I think, for designers is tointernationalize.
The moment you take allthe text from your mock, put it in Google Translate,put it back in the mock, and see what looks horrible-- MUSTAFA KURTULDU: German.
LYNN MERCIER: --like, yeah! German! Or even, like, CJK languages.
Just pick a language.
It doesn't matter ifyou translate it right.
Just, like, do thatfirst step because you're going to run into all thewidth and height problems that a developerwill run into live.
And I think it's goodfor designers, right? It helps you makeyour product better to get feedback aboutwhat sort of languages do I need to support.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU:And it's especially important inuser-generated apps where the content could be 10 pages,or it could be two lines.
LYNN MERCIER: Yeah! MUSTAFA KURTULDU:It's not like-- you always get the mock wherethere's, like, the name-- LYNN MERCIER: Yeah! MUSTAFA KURTULDU: --theavatar name's perfect.
LYNN MERCIER: Fits perfectly.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: Yeah, butwhat if the name's like, you know, four words long? LYNN MERCIER: Yeah.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: Isthere anything else that they can do like the stresstest that wasn't just really-- LYNN MERCIER:Internationalization is a big one.
I think different screen widths,at least in your own web, is helpful as well,like making sure that the obviousbreakpoints work but also sort of smallerones or bigger ones.
But, yeah, it justcomes back to, like, be there when your developerruns into a real problem and help them fix that problem.
I think most developerswant to fix problems.
They want to code that out.
They just want to geton their headphones-- like, get the code outthat will fix the problem, but they don't know how toredesign the site, right? We're not going to-- ifyou make a developer guess how to design a site, we'regoing to guess really poorly.
So you need to helpus as designers.
SPEAKER: If you spentloads of time polishing your, like, amazingprototype, then you suddenly becomevery, like, you know, reticent to throw it away.
Kind of like it'syour baby, you're going to polish this too much.
And so that's dangerous,because then you're not using prototyping forprototyping's real purpose, which is to learn.
ADRIENNE PORTERFELT: You've probably tried to buy somethingonline or had to fill out some formfor your kid's school, and it's reallyhard on your phone.
It's really hard.
MUSTAFA: There seemsto be a dark art when it comes to nativeapplications, and they're such small details thatyou're actually working on.
[MUSIC PLAYING] Quite often, developers willjust throw on input fields onto a page and not reallythink about the UX that's attributed to that.
So they'll think ofa flow of a form, but they won't necessarilyfeel that individual input, so how a user struggles.
And we know thatautocomplete really helps speed up theuser experience and makes fillingforms quite nice.
What are your feelingsand experiences on autocomplete andAutofill as a thing? ADRIENNE PORTER FELT:From the user experience, you've probably triedto buy something online or had to fill out someform for your kid's school.
And it's reallyhard on your phone.
It's really hard.
It's even hard on desktop.
You don't want to get upand get your credit card out of your purse,which is downstairs.
And these browserfeatures just really improve the userexperience of using a form.
In fact, we find that peoplefill out or submit the form 30% faster if the formworks with Autofill.
So we very much suggest thatweb developers think about this.
You want people to besubmitting your forms.
Right? So if you really want yourforms to be submitted quickly, easily, work with Autofill.
MUSTAFA: And why do you thinkdevelopers don't do that? Is it very difficult to do? I'm assuming it's just a fewattributes you add to inputs.
Right? ADRIENNE PORTER FELT: Yeah.
It's actually not that hard.
So you basically need to setup autocomplete attributes, and you need to makesure that you're not doing any fancy things thatreplace the normal select and input elements withother types of elements.
I think most of these developersjust don't think about it, don't realize,that you just need to put a littlebit of extra effort in to make sure that yourform works well with Autofill and to test it out.
MUSTAFA: Is that oneof the challenges, I suppose, like people makingthese custom UI things, which are not native but justlike divs or whatever and replacing that? Is that where thingsfall down with Autofill? ADRIENNE PORTER FELT:Honestly, there's a few things that can go wrong,but that's one of the big ones.
Yeah, so someone wants thisreally beautiful custom form where the dropdown isall fancy and custom.
And as a result of that,they're using all divs.
And the browser can'tfigure out, oh, this is supposed to be a form.
And then in that case,Autofill isn't going to work.
MUSTAFA: And Isuppose there's a lot of accessibilityissues connected to that as well, it looks like.
But from your pointof view, you've got designers anddevelopers, they want to do something custom,like unique experience.
But then as someone whoworks on the browser, you want to say, now letthe browser do the work.
Do you think there'sa middle point there? How can developers at leasthave a custom experience that's unique to theirproduct, but at the same time without breaking standards? Because this is one of thebiggest challenges on the web.
ADRIENNE PORTER FELT:So there's a lot of things you can do tochange the look of the form on the page while stillusing the select and input elements that HTML provides.
Right? You can customizethem in many ways.
I have to admit, there is onething you can't customize, and it's the lookof the dropdown, like in a select element.
But everything else, the wayit statically looks on a page, you can customize.
And the browser will stillknow that they're fields.
What you see is thebiggest challenge then, for Autofillor implementation, from your point of view? ADRIENNE PORTER FELT:I think it's honestly that developers don't thinkabout it, that people don't think to themselves that theyreally need to be testing their forms in this way.
When you've made it yourself,you've filled it out 100 times.
You tested it yourself.
And you don't thinkabout the fact that a user is goingto be coming to it in a different state of mind.
They are tryingto fill it out as fast as they can on the phone.
So I think developersjust aren't really thinking about the factthat they need to take these extra small steps.
MUSTAFA: So in terms ofbrowser compatibility, the things you're using willbe Chrome-specific stuff? Or is that open source-- not open source, butit's cross-platform.
ADRIENNE PORTER FELT: Yeah,that's a good question.
So specifically autocompleteattributes for Autofill, that's standardized.
All the browsers respect them.
With that being said, thereis one part, turning Autofill off-- that's the autocompleteoff attribute-- is not respected by all browsers.
But if you say,this form should be a credit card, thatwill be respected by all the major browsers.
MUSTAFA: But eachexperience, is there slight quirks per browser? Because obviously, that's goingto be a browser-specific thing.
ADRIENNE PORTER FELT: Some are-- they have veryslightly different UIs.
For example, maybe they'llbe integrated with a keyboard widget versus a dropdown.
But I think they're prettysimilar across browsers.
MUSTAFA: You work on theactual Chrome UI itself.
ADRIENNE PORTER FELT: Yes.
MUSTAFA: So are you actuallybuilding that design and code yourself, or are youworking with UX designers in that process? ADRIENNE PORTER FELT: Sowe have a design team.
And the design team helpsus figure out what those UI elements should look like.
We actually have a bigredesign coming up this year that I think is going tomake those substantially more beautiful and also help clean upthe code, which I know that it won't affect most people becauseit won't look any different.
But from our perspective-- MUSTAFA: It's much cleaner.
ADRIENNE PORTER FELT: Man,the code's so much cleaner.
MUSTAFA: What's the actualprocess of you actually creating UI? Because for me, I do front-enddevelopment and code.
But it's like there seemsto be a dark art when it comes to native applications.
And they're such smalldetails that you're actually working on, which the user maynot notice because it works.
But if it's broken,they will see it.
What is the actualprocess that you go through with your Chromedesigners to actually making the UI or testing it? I'm asking lots ofquestions all at once.
ADRIENNE PORTERFELT: Yeah, it's OK.
So I'll talk about theprocess a little bit.
So usually at the beginning,Product, Eng, and the designer will get togetherand talk about what they hope for from the feature.
Often, the designwill then come up with some conceptualmocks of what they feel the feature could look like.
They'll get feedbackfrom Product.
They'll get feedback fromthe engineers, like can we actually build this, whatare the corner cases we need? And then we'lliteratively get closer to what we actually can ship.
So I work on across-platform team, which means that whatwe build has to ship on all of Chrome's platforms.
People think of Chromeas one platform.
But actually, it'sWindows and Mac-- which previouslyhad different UIs, but we're coming toone single standard-- Android, iOS.
And so we have to havedifferent mocks that relate to the specific platforms.
So some things may bepossible for some subset.
Anyway, the designers get allthis feedback from engineers, like, we can do thishere and not there.
And then we iterativelycome through to red lines, which isour final set of designs.
And that's what we implement.
MUSTAFA: So in termsof do the designers work with the actual W3C? Because you'redesigning something which has to beconsidered cross-platform at the same [? time.
?] So likewhen the payment request API, like I was working withsome of the team there, there seems to be thingswhere you have to really be seeing whateveryone else is doing so that the experiencethat you're creating is not so widely different.
And that can be quitechallenging for the designer and developer because youinstinctively want to make it, I don't know, "better.
" But you don't want to makeit so vastly different, because then you stick out.
ADRIENNE PORTER FELT: That'san interesting question.
The challenge here isthat with specs, we try not to specify whatthe UI has to look like.
We try to talk about what theuser experience should be so that we can have the appropriatecallbacks, et cetera, to build that experience.
But we don't like tostandardize the UI itself, which is a fine balance becauseyou have to have a UI in mind when you're designing the API.
But we try to make itas general as possible so that we can build differentUI experiences on top of it.
MUSTAFA: Are you workingwith the browsers as well at the sametime to do that, or is it you do things independently? Because there's the thing.
It's like if you do it[INAUDIBLE] the browsers, then you may be leddown a path that's not the best for everyone.
That it's, OK, it'slike a compromise.
But at the same time, you don'twant that complete disparity.
ADRIENNE PORTER FELT: Itdepends a lot on the standard, honestly.
Some of them willbe heavily driven by Chrome or some other browser.
They really want this API.
They'll drive it, and thenget a little bit of feedback along the way fromother vendors.
Whereas others,from the beginning, there's severaldifferent browser vendors working together.
So honestly, it differsfrom standard to standard.
MUSTAFA: And we're coming to the10-year anniversary of Chrome.
What do you thinkthe future of say, Autofill, or just workingwith the other browsers? Because it seems like thingsare getting much better.
I was speaking toDarren, and it was like, the implementationof Flexbox was a nightmare becausethe standard kept changing.
But with CSS grid, it'samazing that there's so much cross-collaborationbetween the browsers, which is great for the users and thedevelopers working across this.
What do you think the futureis for Chrome as a platform and, I suppose, Autofillas well as a specific? ADRIENNE PORTER FELT: Sofor Autofill specifically, it's hard to saybecause I don't think the limitation there reallyis the lack of browser vendors cooperating.
I feel like actually, there'sbeen a lot of discussion, for example, aroundpayment request.
There's a lot of collaborationbetween Safari and Chrome.
I think that thereal problem we have is that Autofill dependson developer adoption.
Right? If it's hard for thebrowser to figure out what form's in thepage, we're not going to be able to Autofill it.
And so I think thething we really care about is whetherwe can get developers interested in andusing the tools that we have provided for them totry to improve the Autofill experience.
Do you ever have toremove a feature when you see there's not wide adoption? Because I can seefrom an engineer, you're working on Chrome.
You spent your heart andsoul working on this feature.
And then you know it'sgreat for user experience.
You know from theresearch that Autofill will help transactions,and it's just nicer.
But if adoption doesn'thappen, how do you [INAUDIBLE]?? It's the biggest-- ADRIENNE PORTER FELT: Yeah,that's a really hard one.
I've been througha few deprecations.
They can be really challenging.
It's very hard.
So there are a few waysyou can look at it.
One is how many usersinteract with websites that are using such a feature.
And obviously, thatnumber is large, you don't want to create apain point for a lot of users.
But even if thenumber is very small, it might be that there are afew websites, a few companies, whose entire businessmodel depends on having access to this API.
And so that can make itvery difficult, where OK, even if it's thisreally a niche thing, it still can behard to deprecate.
So I think there have beenlots of ongoing discussions in general about howto make that trade-off.
Some of the onesI've been involved in relate specificallyto security and TLS, where if something is makingthe web as a whole as safe, we may have to breaksome connections in order to deprecate it.
And it can be areally painful thing when you've got old serverson the internet that aren't being upgraded.
And maybe it's only a smallpercentage of overall page loads, but it'sstill frustrating when a user is trying to getto a website and it's broken.
But ultimately, fromChrome's perspective, it's the user's experiencethat's paramount.
Right? ADRIENNE PORTER FELT: Yes.
MUSTAFA: And theirsafety and security.
So it's like HTTPS, you couldprobably explain it better, but there's a cutoff pointwhere if your site is not loaded on HTTPS, you're goingto get a message saying, this isn't secure.
Right? ADRIENNE PORTER FELT: Fora long time in Chrome, we showed HTTP as neutral, HTTPas just plain text and no TLS.
MUSTAFA: Sorry, what's TLS,just for my non-designer-- ADRIENNE PORTER FELT: Oh, TLSis the underlying protocol that makes HTTPS HTTPS.
It's why it's secure.
So there is HTTP,which doesn't have any of the end-to-endsecurity bits on it.
And HTTP websiteswere just shown as a neutral standard thing.
Right? Most websites on the web wereHTTP, but that's changed.
We went from a few yearsago, we were at 25% HTTPS.
And now, it's the opposite wherewe're at more like 75% HTTPS.
So made changes in theUI to back that up.
So now when you go to awebsite that says HTTP, it's going to also say"not secure" next to it so people reallyunderstand what that means.
MUSTAFA: That decision mustbe quite tough, though.
In some respects, you need toforce the developers to say users' security is paramount.
But at the sametime, does it feel like you're breaking the web? ADRIENNE PORTER FELT:It doesn't really feel like we'rebreaking the web.
First of all, Ithink people have seen this a long time coming.
We've been talking aboutit for a long time.
We've rolled it out in phases.
So first, we started showing"not secure" specifically for pages with passwordsand credit card form fields.
And then it was for allform fields and web pages when viewed in incognito.
And now we're rolling itout for all HTTP websites.
And as you can see, becauseHTTPS adoption has really increased, it's onlyimpacting less than a quarter of page loads at this point.
MUSTAFA: So really,we're just talking about protecting the user.
ADRIENNE PORTERFELT: Yeah, and I think users have a right to knowthat their information isn't secure when they'regoing to this website and help them make adecision about whether or not they want to keep using thatservice or go to another one.
MUSTAFA: And do youthink users are quite savvy now to see those things? Or is this part of theeducation for the user as well to say, look,there are certain things on the web which arenot secure that you have to take into consideration.
ADRIENNE PORTERFELT: I'll be honest.
We have literally billions ofactive users, so it's hard to-- MUSTAFA: Make ageneral [INAUDIBLE] ADRIENNE PORTERFELT: --say generally whether people are goingto understand it or not.
We think enoughpeople understand it that they have a reactionand that they can reach out to sites saying, hey, Ireally like this site, but I wish it were secure.
And we see people doing thatas we've been rolling out these warnings.
SPEAKER 1: The way thatcellular networks are set up is that there's alwaysthese fringe areas, and there's alwaysthese breakdowns.
And higher latencyis always there.