Would Really Like Your Input

Google accounts for over 5.7 billion searches conducted on the web daily.

The Google-recommended configuration for smartphone-optimized sites is responsive web design.

Responsive Web Design has an assortment of names.

Responsive design creates blocks (frames).  There is a block for the title, a block for each paragraph, a block for the header, a block for the footer, etc.  “Pages that use frames (blocks) or iframes display several URLs (one for each frame) within a single page.”(this quote from https://stackoverflow.com/questions/362730/are-iframes-considered-bad-practice

Excerpt from  Ars Technica

“Google has deprecated the desktop Web. It’s still here, but for Google it just got less important.

At least that’s the implicit message in Google’s mobile search update. The company is now judging how “mobile-friendly” a site is and is using that metric to weight search results served to mobile devices.

……”The mobile-friendly update will boost the rankings of mobile-friendly pages… in mobile search results worldwide. (Conversely, pages designed for only large screens may see a significant decrease in rankings in mobile search results.)” In other words, sites that work on mobile will outrank sites that don’t when all other things are equal.

So what does a site need to do in order for Google to consider it “mobile-friendly”?

The company’s guidelines suggest that the site start by avoiding any content that requires Adobe’s Flash Player. That will probably sound obvious to most developers at this point, but don’t forget that old YouTube and other video embeds were probably done with <object> tags, which means Flash Player. Google suggests updating to the more modern iframe embed method that’s the default on most video hosting sites today.”

Excerpt from OS Training: https://www.ostraining.com/blog/webdesign/against-using-iframes/

“If you create an iframe, your site becomes vulnerable to cross-site attacks.

  • You may get a submittable malicious web form, phishing your users’ personal data.
  • A malicious user can run a plug-in.
  • A malicious user can change the source site URL.
  • A malicious user can hijack your users’ clicks.
  • A malicious user can hijack your users’ keystrokes.”  (end quote)

There is so much information available about block design, iframes, reactive design (all basically the same)

Some of this information is 3 years old, some newer and it is available with a little digging.  It is much easier to find positive articles about reactive design because that is what Google wants. It was reactive design that wrecked my original site (after  13 years of energy and effort invested) so one would think I would be immune by now.  It is clear that most all servers are making the switch.

I have agonized for several years about responsive design.  I have quoted in this article only the quick -find provable, but there is so much more that only the techs for each server know.  That is because each server develops proprietary code.

I believe with use of iframes the opportunity for evil far outweighs any good.  For instance, Google has upped the ante (over a year ago, but they have recently gotten around to ruining another site for me. My Wordflair.net site now gives the following report when the site is accessed:

‘SECURITY WARNING   There are problems with the security certificate of this site.”

Then it lists names and numbers that I’ve never heard of…Nothing has changed about my site and it caused no concerns before.  A further truth is that a site that does not collect money or take personal information has no need of a security rating. Wordflair neither requests nor accepts any money  or remuneration of any kind and offers no memberships.  It is a place to read contemporary poetry and/or  to send your own work for consideration to be featured.( The contact form for submitting is on thepeacefulpub.com a wordpress site.)

I contend that Google has created a monopoly scenario.  Net Neutrality would have served as a tool to limit this control of the Internet, but design tactics would still create a control of rank and access and the possibility of redirects hidden throughout your site.  This is only the beginning…already reactive design allows markers and pointers from your site to who knows where, without your knowledge or any visible sign, unless you access the source code and then have the time to search through the coding.

Where will it end?

2 thoughts on “Would Really Like Your Input

  1. RD,

    Thanks for replying…I am closing my Wordflair site. They just sent me a note that I could remove that security warning off the site by changing over to reactive design. I’ve had that site since 2004, but I am closing it today, soon as I get it all copied to thumb drive.

    As for Google…I’m with you…they are too controlling and so is the gov…not sure where the answer lies…I just want everyone to think about an answer and maybe out of all that thinking something right will happen. Again, my thanks to you!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s