> I don't see how the study you linked contradicted anything I was saying.
Jeff, you defended Google once saying that their decisions are motivated by wanting to help users make informed choices. The study was just to show that they have a track record of doing the exact opposite. Your characterization of Google was misinformed at least on that occasion. I made an educated guess that if you were willing to defend one stance that was proven wrong (that Google has any vested interest in helping users make informed choices) then it's possible you may make the same mistake again.
But dang is right, in the spirit of collegiality I should have found a better way to point out this mistake or even not do it at all.
That's not how I see that conversation:
* reaperducer was asking why it was useful for the browser to show that the page was one that usually loaded quickly/slowly
* As someone who had worked on an effort to speed up the web I replied with why I thought it was useful
* jfoster gave a good response describing why it might not have the effect I expected, since if users know a site is usually slow that may make them more patient
* I replied that this was still good, because users were in a position to make a better decision about whether to continue waiting for the site to load.
* You responded with something completely unrelated to what we were talking about.
* I tried to be helpful anyway, even though your comment wasn't something I knew much about.
* You continued in a direction that I don't know much about (how to communicate things like whether location tracking is on) and linked to a study which I didn't have time to read.
* This wasn't a discussion I was interested in, so I didn't respond. I don't see how the study you linked contradicted anything I was saying.