Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 489 posts

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#321

Post by freyr »

cramforce wrote: post #262
freyr wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another bug I've noticed is that AMP breaks in-page searching with iOS Safari. If you perform an in-page search, the browser will not scroll to the found instances of the search term on an AMP page. I imagine it's related to the other scrolling issues. Please, please fix this. It's impossible to support something that's foisted on us and breaks basic web functionality. If I were cynical, I'd say bugs like this are de…

I believe we have a webkit patch pending for this. Definitely on our radar! Edit: some detail. Safari sometimes doesn't scroll find results into view when they are in overflowed space. This issue actually affects a large percentage of web pages. Fixing it was very easy, was just an oversight in WebKit.

Great. Thank you for submitting the WebKit patch, and sorry for heaping the blame on you guys. Looking forward to the update.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#322

Post by cramforce »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #315
cramforce wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't care either way. But Safari should have the SAME scroll inertia for every scroll context and ideally it is the same as used for native apps.

It feels like putting inertia control options in a browser was a big mistake in first place.

There are no such controls. There are just different places where one can scroll. All other browsers (as far as I know, and this includes Safari on desktop) make all of these the same, but mobile Safari chose to make them different.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#324

Post by niftich »

Buge wrote: post #318
cramforce wrote: post #165

With respect to scrolling: We (AMP team) filed a bug with Apple about that (we didn't implement scrolling ourselves, just use a div with overflow). We asked to make the scroll inertia for that case the same as the normal scrolling. Apple's response was (surprisingly) to make the default scrolling like the overflow scrolling. So, with the next Safari release all pages will scroll like AMP pages. Hope Gruber is happy t…

What are you talking about? Who is Gruber? And there is nothing in the article about scrolling.

A little bit before 2017-05-21T00:52Z [1], moderator sctb updated [2] the submission's URL from the original blog post by John Gruber [3], to that of an article in The Register penned by Scott Gilbertson. Gruber's post quotes Gilbertson, and supports its main premise, but offers its own perspective.

Changing the submission URL is unfortunate, because a lot of the discussion in this thread prior to 2017-05-21T00:52Z pertains as much to Gruber's material as the Register article. Now a lot of this discussion, as you seem to have noticed, appears out of context.

[1] https://hacker-news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/14385185.json?pri... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14385185 [3] https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/05/20/gilbertson-amp

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#325

Post by [deleted] »

namuol wrote: post #115

> Google has no respect for [iOS Safari]. It’s a deliberate effort by Google to break the open web. I could make the same argument that Apple cripples iOS Safari's implementations of emerging standards that aim to bring the web experience closer to a "native feel" to keep its app store revenue churning: http://caniuse.com/#feat=stream ...but really it's a lot more likely that getting _all_ things right on _all_ platf…

[deleted]

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#326

Post by protomyth »

pdimitar wrote: post #259
manigandham wrote: post #90

HTML is already fast. It's the stuff that's added to the page that slows it down, and we already have plenty of standards, techniques and solutions to make sites faster. AMP is just an alternate HTML framework that prevents certain things, that's all. Not sure why everyone is so eager to opt-in to a less flexible system instead of fixing their existing web presence. All it does is increase the amount of time and reso…

I am on your side -- just chiming in to share my observations. To 99% of the businesses I worked with, software development is a singular expense . It's treated like buying a tractor for the farm. Hell, even farming equipment is more generously funded by the buyers for possible future expenses (compared to most software development) -- maintenance, repairs, parts that periodically need replacement, fuel. For one reas…

A farmer understands a tractor, but most business people don't understand software development.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#327

Post by protomyth »

ihsw2 wrote: post #290
fenomas wrote: post #284

What kills me about AMP's UX is that not only is it a dark pattern, it's not even a new dark pattern. Back, say, 10-12 years ago it used to be really common for sites to jigger their outgoing links, such that the target site would appear in an iframe underneath a toolbar from the original site. This was widely reviled, and mostly died out, and the fact that Google is reviving it really bothers me.

How is this a dark pattern? Sites opt into it, users get a streamlined interface for content consumption, everybody wins. The only losers in this are those seeking to "curate" the user experience (UX) on their sites, and personally I lump them in with malicious ad peddlers -- to hell with them.

It is the same opt-in as mob protection: "nice search results you have there, be a shame if something dropped you to page 2"

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#328

Post by MBCook »

Buge wrote: post #319
MBCook wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's any irony here. You deployed something that worked horribly on iOS, you didn't offer a way to opt out, and when someone else put in a fix for your terrible UX that just happens to change everything else to the way your stuff currently works you use it to gloat and a guy who pointed out how terrible your UX was. Honestly this whole thing (AMP and your comment) come off arrogant as hell to me. I l…

You don't think there's any irony in the fact that Google noticed that Safari was behaving badly sometimes, and asked Apple to fix it, and Apple said "wow thanks for pointing that out, we're going to make it much more extreme". Google asked for one thing, and because of that was given the exact opposite. That's pretty much the definition of irony. >a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to wh…

I wouldn't have expected Apple to speed up the scrolling on everything else if that's what's really happening, but I don't find it amusing.

As I said another comments though Safari was doing exactly what it was designed to do (for whatever reason they designed it that way). I don't think this is a bug on Apple's part. It makes sense to harmonize the scrolling behavior, but I don't believe it was unintentional.

Now I understand what someone was talking about when they said this might be ironic. I wasn't even sure what they were referring to. I can't place my finger on why this doesn't seem like irony to me. Maybe it's just not odd enough.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#329

Post by protomyth »

ihsw2 wrote: post #287
mort96 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's broken AMP crap is what made me switch to duckduckgo on iOS.

It seems to me that only iOS users are complaining -- as an Android user I am blown away by how readable AMP pages are. I can just get to the page, read it, and then leave. There's no futzing around with: * long scrolling down "the fold" filled with clickbait in-site links or other unrelated nonsense * interstitial and overlay ads * crappy non-mobile interfaces * "Shared" buttons stickied to the bottom or top of the…

Yes, the people who don't own a phone OS by Google are complaining about Google's AMP. That is part of the problem.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#330

Post by ninkendo »

ihsw2 wrote: post #299
ninkendo wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the standard, it's what google does to amp sites: re-hosts them on their own site so your site is now (essentially) google.com/yoursite.com. AMP as a standard is great: limit javascript to a known set of behaviors, ensure images/etc all have defined sizes so content doesn't jump around... but google's using the benefits of this standard as a trojan horse to route even more web traffic to their servers, enabl…

But it's entirely opt-in -- how is this controversial?

Because users seeing AMP links as faster will pressure more sites to do it.

Keep in mind, AMP pages on google aren't just fast because you're not using bloated javascript, they're fast because:

- The JS that is used is CDN cached and shared with all other AMP sites

- You're loading the content from the same origin (google.com) so no need to establish a new TLS connection, or look up DNS, etc

- Google's servers/networking/etc stack is very fast, faster than what is in reach of most sites

- The new content is loaded into the existing DOM of the search page, which can be much faster

And probably the most damning:

- Google will eagerly-load the contents of the first few results, making them not just fast but 100% instant.

What choice do sites have?

Post reply on HN