151–160 of 189 posts
I wish Google would just heavily weight fast-loading, responsively-designed pages in pagerank and call it a day. There's no need for a weird problematic proprietary format.. It just smacks of a power grab to keep visitors on google.com.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That claim is pretty shallow. The content is there, it's just hidden through css. If anything, a screen reader has access to the content earlier than the unimpaired people.
Accessibility is about much more than screen readers. If a user experiences problems accessing your site, that’s an accessibility problem, no matter what physical attributes that person possesses.
I agree with the spirit of your message though, but that's not what the grandparent post claimed.
> Accessibility is the design of products, devices, services, or environments for people with disabilities.[1] The concept of accessible design and practice of accessible development ensures both "direct access" (i.e. unassisted) and "indirect access" meaning compatibility with a person's assistive technology[2] (for example, computer screen readers).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That just leads to every page on the web hosting its own copy of jQuery. The whole purpose of external JS is to reduce load times by sharing cacheable libraries (admittedly with the side benefit of less bandwidth for the host). And if you think a whitelist would work, all it takes is one look at how rapidly new JS libraries come and go to render that unfeasible
You would use content names rather than location-based identifiers in that case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my reading of https://www.ampproject.org/docs/fundamentals/spec , it looks like you could override this behaviour in uBlock Origin with a style cosmetic filter. Something like... ##html[amp] body,html[\26A1] body:style(animation:none!important) (I can't test it in my current browser, unfortunately, but I think that's right.) [edit] Update: I got to a browser I could test it on. Unfortunately, it turns out uBO do…
And if uBlock needs to be modified to make your Amp-adjacent experience better, it's probably a bug uBlock's team should be notified about.
This is clearly a bug, since blocking AMP is not related to blocking ads (all the normal ad blocking rules should do the job just fine).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But how do you know which 1 or 2% of the time it's happening?
If you don't notice that the article is missing some paragraphs, then the article has had a bad editor.
If paragraphs of text go missing, maybe you notice it instantly, but if it's images or code blocks which aren't explicitly mentioned in the body text of the article and just let exist to contextualize or demonstrate what the author is talking about, how will you know that something is missing? More importantly, is it even possible to develop a heuristic which catches almost all cases where parts are missing, without lots of false positives for cases which are just inexperienced authors writing bad articles?
In my experience AMP is considerably slower unless I happen to be browsing in Chrome. It's probably an accidental result of how they implemented AMP, that framework is tuned specifically for Chrome in the first place (odd CSS hacks to nudge Chrome's compositor into behaving a certain way, etc.)
AMP pages take forever to load for me with Firefox and uBlock Origin. When I open a news story from Google's recommendations, which always open to AMP pages, it pretty much always takes about 15 to 30 to show anything on screen. I instinctively edit the link manually nowto try to go to the non-AMP version, which typically loads the content in under 5 seconds.
If you're using Firefox, you can just use the Redirect AMP to HTML extension.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accessibility is about much more than screen readers. If a user experiences problems accessing your site, that’s an accessibility problem, no matter what physical attributes that person possesses.
It seems you've been misinformed by the current generation of web designers. Accessibility is actually limited to people with disabilities, though a few people have started to use it interchangeably with usability. [0] I agree with the spirit of your message though, but that's not what the grandparent post claimed. > Accessibility is the design of products, devices, services, or environments for people with disabilit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't notice that the article is missing some paragraphs, then the article has had a bad editor.
I mostly read random people's programming related blog posts. Knowing whether the article just is kind of bad at explaining what it's trying to say, or if important parts of it is missing, is really not obvious. If paragraphs of text go missing, maybe you notice it instantly, but if it's images or code blocks which aren't explicitly mentioned in the body text of the article and just let exist to contextualize or demo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're using Firefox, you can just use the Redirect AMP to HTML extension.
Or, an alternative approach that also works in Chrome: use DuckDuckGo. Actually early AMP, that was extremely broken, pushed me out of Google completely.