91–100 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time I look at a website its shocking how no one even does basic image optimisation using PS on the images. This is such a trivial optimisation it makes you wonder about the level of competency of the average web development company.
Is there an alternative that doesn't require a monthly subscription?
You can insert ImageMagick somewhere into your production pipeline. It's excellent software.
The whole idea of AMP seems like it's really the wrong way to solve the problem. If you remove all the third party JavaScript, fonts, large images and "like" buttons you'll have effectively the same. I guess it already messes up ads and analytics (although I'd assume Google's services still work), so what's the problem? Kind of related: I recently switched my blog from Wordpress to Hugo. I found a minimal theme, but…
I also don't get it. Anyone that wants to provide a responsive web site (as in fast to use and load) should stick to plain HTML/CSS, no need for JavaScript or "patterns".
I would expect an un-biased search engine to rate pages with and without AMP equal and to not show 'badges' based on whether or not a page uses tech by the same vendor of the search engine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't like AMP nobody stops you from doing the same thing. The AMP symbol tells users that the site loads quickly. Google doesn't indicate the same thing about non-AMP sites that still load quickly. Guess which site the user will tend to choose. I am not sure AMP will be optional for sites that want to get chosen.
I'm pretty sure non tech users don't even know what AMP is for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there an alternative that doesn't require a monthly subscription?
http://www.imagemagick.org/script/convert.php You can insert ImageMagick somewhere into your production pipeline. It's excellent software.
It's not your site any more. You're just a free content provider to Google now.
When I heard about AMP, I didn't get warm fuzzies. I didn't exactly know how or why, but something told me that the main benefactor with this technology was Google, not the user, and certainly not the content provider. I can make pages faster without AMP by stripping the needless bloat and using a proper CDN. Why do I need this tech again, besides the artificial goad of page rank?
Then Facebook started to court publishers and suddenly the best way to read a lot of web content was inside of Facebook which is obviously terrible for Google. So Google came up with Amp as a way for publishers to provide the same experience on the web.
I don't (and never will) use AMP and I feel that it is patently unfair to penalize pages for not using some non-standard tech. Google should index the web fairly, not make use of their tech a factor. Webpage speed is a fair measure (and I really wouldn't know what I could do to make my pages any faster, AMP will not make a measurable difference). I would expect an un-biased search engine to rate pages with and withou…
Well there's your problem :-). Google isn't an unbiased search engine, they're a commercial entity with a financial interest in feeding you particular search results. They're absolutely going to be biased in the results they provide you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hugely agree - this feels like a dark pattern callback to one of the early web's uglier constructs. I mean - running a "we'll host your page for you in exchange for injecting a toolbar" service isn't necessarily an evil thing to do. But there's no reason to opt people into it just because they're tying to perform well on mobile.
I suspect the toolbar is there to clearly identify the origin URL. As you can see, safari gives you no hint that this page is not actually google: https://imgur.com/a/2BtMX As for the X button, I suppose google wishes people to use google search result like a news reader. I agree that it is redundant with the back button but the interaction does seem faster (I suspect that the page is actually loaded in an iframe on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> can you imagine if every site that linked to yours had a bar at the top of your page that said "back to facebook" or "back to wikipedia"? I saw a site do this yesterday. It was so noticeable because I only permit same-origin JavaScript and the whole site broke (most actually work). Then I realised there is an intermediary providing this service: http://linkis.com/ It is the worst of all things.
you can detect if your page is running inside iframe and if so, make the browser to load only your page, to get rid of services such as linkis.com
I learned, through a series of usability tests my (former) startup ran amongst its users, that most non-tech people do not click the back button and get very confused if your pages don't have their own back/forward/close/menu navigation.
We moved our apps workflow from "use the browsers back button to go back" to having all navigation including back/close as part of the HTML UI.