41–50 of 93 posts
Google intentionally gimps Firefox on Android, by serving an old-school page. Using an addon (which you can on mobile Fx, and not on Chrome), fixes this by editing the UA string when visiting Google. Getting the "nice experience", however, gives me amp links. And when I click on them, I'm unable to scroll?! It doesn't matter if it loads fast, when I cannot read beyond the fold. It also breaks the "open in app" I norm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are building another monstrosity to be able to masquerade as your entire domain. But it is optional , of course /s
Website authors opting in to letting another server serve content "as" their own domain isn't anything new: it's what CDNs do. The Signed Exchanges standard is actually a huge step up because the website authors get to cryptographically sign their content. With normal CDNs, if the CDN is malicious or gets hacked, the CDN is free to serve modified content on the original domain.
A CDN where active content is extremely limited, and advertising is effectively limited to Google.
A CDN entirely under control of the biggest search engine, who has a direct, a perverse incentive to take as much traffic from you as they can (see info boxes).
Presenting Google AMP as "just" a CDN is very dishonest.
Google intentionally gimps Firefox on Android, by serving an old-school page. Using an addon (which you can on mobile Fx, and not on Chrome), fixes this by editing the UA string when visiting Google. Getting the "nice experience", however, gives me amp links. And when I click on them, I'm unable to scroll?! It doesn't matter if it loads fast, when I cannot read beyond the fold. It also breaks the "open in app" I norm…
AMP isn't all bad. SXG from AMP will enable advanced P2P CDN tech to flourish. Unfortunately Mozilla has decided to not support it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But most purely desktop sites, are in fact, not anywhere close to good on mobile. A good test is: do you need to zoom in and then pan horizontally to be able to read the content?
Personally, I don't even mind panning around across both axes and zooming in but I may be a minority in that respect. Probably a large minority nonetheless. On Android/Chrome, the experience is not bad. When you load the desktop site, it looks very small but you see the whole thing. Then you can zoom in and pan using your fingers... Not so different from how you use Google maps. It's just a tiny bit slower than on de…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet another HN user talking about their use case. 99% of people are not your typical HN user.
So, 99% of people care more about aesthetics than about than content? Got anything to back that up?
Google intentionally gimps Firefox on Android, by serving an old-school page. Using an addon (which you can on mobile Fx, and not on Chrome), fixes this by editing the UA string when visiting Google. Getting the "nice experience", however, gives me amp links. And when I click on them, I'm unable to scroll?! It doesn't matter if it loads fast, when I cannot read beyond the fold. It also breaks the "open in app" I norm…
I think that the mobile trend was blown way out of proportion. I very often find myself clicking on the 'Browse desktop version' button when browsing a so-called 'mobile-friendly' version of a site. Is the look of the website really more important than the content and functionality? For me, it's not. This is just another example of a big tech monopoly imposing their highly opinionated ideas on billions of people. Als…
Yet another HN user talking about their use case. 99% of people are not your typical HN user.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I don't even mind panning around across both axes and zooming in but I may be a minority in that respect. Probably a large minority nonetheless. On Android/Chrome, the experience is not bad. When you load the desktop site, it looks very small but you see the whole thing. Then you can zoom in and pan using your fingers... Not so different from how you use Google maps. It's just a tiny bit slower than on de…
You are an outlier. Most people will not pan around to read an article - they'll just switch to an app instead of the web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But most purely desktop sites, are in fact, not anywhere close to good on mobile. A good test is: do you need to zoom in and then pan horizontally to be able to read the content?
Personally, I don't even mind panning around across both axes and zooming in but I may be a minority in that respect. Probably a large minority nonetheless. On Android/Chrome, the experience is not bad. When you load the desktop site, it looks very small but you see the whole thing. Then you can zoom in and pan using your fingers... Not so different from how you use Google maps. It's just a tiny bit slower than on de…
There's your problem