Maybe browsers should accept the text/markdown mimetype natively, instead of AMP. Covers 80% of the usecases, with a drastic reduction in complexity and pageload times.
Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
141–150 of 238 posts
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s unjust for a government to regulate what enters its borders from another country? So you’re suggesting that the U.K. should allow assault rifles to be sold from the USA, in spite of the fact they’re outright illegal to own inside the borders of the U.K. Why is it unjust when literally the entire U.K. population is in support of this position?
> Why is it unjust when literally the entire U.K. population is in support of this position? Obviously not "literally the entire U.K. population" if someone in the U.K. isn't following the rule. This is a complex subject and I'm not going to get into it here, but the Cliff's Notes version is basically that the U.K. government is not a party to this transaction, is not harmed by it, and does not represent (as in: havi…
Put simply: your logic is insane and no government adopts it, for good reason.
Longer version: governments adopt rules based on what works for them and their population. This includes rules that govern what can and can’t be sold in a business transaction. This is a principle as old as government itself. It makes sense that governments then apply these rules to things going in and out of its borders. It would be nuts to ban the sale of guns inside a country but allow them to be sold into the country, for example.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
> your house, your rules You're not in their "house". You're just communicating with someone who is. If some foreign government has a problem with that communication they should take it up with the party who is physically within their jurisdiction—not that I believe they have any just standing there either.
You’re trying to do business in another country with different rules. If you want to sell food into the EU, you need to comply with their food safety regulations. Why does this magically change when someone utters the words “the internet?”
> You’re trying to do business in another country with different rules.
You are not doing business in another country. First, there may not be any "business" involved at all. More importantly, however, you are not in the other country. The other person is. If physical property is involved then someone—not necessarily you—is going to need to worry about import/export regulations when moving it across the border. When it comes to virtual services and websites, however, those concerns rooted in physical transportation do not apply.
> Why does this magically change when someone utters the words “the internet?”
It makes no difference whether you're communicating over the Internet or by phone or two-way radio or postal mail or carrier pigeon, or by shouting to each other across the border. So long as you're only exchanging data and not physical goods they can implement technical measures to block the communication at the border, or order their own residents not to communicate with you—in which case I would advise them to make arrangements leave the country posthaste—but you yourself remain outside their jurisdiction.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#144The replacement they're whining about is "core web vitals" IE the metric you can view at[1]. This is what AMP should have been in the beginning and I was surprised they did something else, it made Google search unusable on mobile. [1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9205520?hl=en This means that your hand-coded-in-vim static pages will rank near the top.
That’s an extreme claim that requires some backing evidence. Mobile search quality is the main metric google uses to judge its search products. The idea that google search is “unusable on mobile” is pretty silly, if you’re literally the only person who ever noticed.
You probably did what I did and mostly missed what was happening the past couple years by using duckduckgo the whole time. I formatted my phone at some point last year and the search engine reverted to google, it really was unusable but not something people who wouldn't know better would get too upset about.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s an extreme claim that requires some backing evidence. Mobile search quality is the main metric google uses to judge its search products. The idea that google search is “unusable on mobile” is pretty silly, if you’re literally the only person who ever noticed.
You probably did what I did and mostly missed what was happening the past couple years by using duckduckgo the whole time. I formatted my phone at some point last year and the search engine reverted to google, it really was unusable but not something people who wouldn't know better would get too upset about.
(by last year I mean 2019.)
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#146I've been working on core web vitals for the better part of a year at a major news outlet. I have seriously mixed feelings. There's probably an hour-long talk about this in me but briefly: - It's really nice and maybe unprecedented to have an alignment of business, user, eng, and seo goals. Google is using it's monopoly to change roadmap priorities across the industry. The web vitals themselves are unquestionably goo…
* The web vitals themselves are unquestionably good for the user* Fast pages are good, but Google is using their tools like Page Speed to push you to adopt Google’s ideas of fast, like using WebP for images. So now you might have a bunch of cruft in your page to support multiple image types. Also, as user, I hate lazy loading. I can scroll faster than images load. I’d rather everything load in the beginning, and have…
The cruft in webpages is not from having support for multiple image types.
its look at any site in chrome dev tools.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#147> The logic behind AMP goes like this: web developers suck at making fast websites, let's strip out all the stuff people don't need and cache it on our super-fast servers. Web developers don't suck at making fast websites. Publishers demand tons of ads and tracking scripts. If the person signing the paychecks wants the page to have 15MB of sketchy third-party JS, then the page will have 15MB of sketchy third-party JS…
From experience its not the tracking code that is the major culprit.
Like @djtriptych I do a lot of work on a major brand sites its poor FE design and implementation.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#148It's funny that Google says they care about performance, yet the number one reason for bad performance on many site is Google Adsense ads. Did no one in Ads team get the memo to optimize performance?
Nope its not the major issue
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#149I've been working on core web vitals for the better part of a year at a major news outlet. I have seriously mixed feelings. There's probably an hour-long talk about this in me but briefly: - It's really nice and maybe unprecedented to have an alignment of business, user, eng, and seo goals. Google is using it's monopoly to change roadmap priorities across the industry. The web vitals themselves are unquestionably goo…
* The web vitals themselves are unquestionably good for the user* Fast pages are good, but Google is using their tools like Page Speed to push you to adopt Google’s ideas of fast, like using WebP for images. So now you might have a bunch of cruft in your page to support multiple image types. Also, as user, I hate lazy loading. I can scroll faster than images load. I’d rather everything load in the beginning, and have…
WebP is good iff it improves rendering times (which it does). That's not google's fault really. Any way you can come up with to optimize images is valid under Core Web Vitals. I really don't think any of it is skewed towards Google's solutions except the testing/measurement methodology. I would love open source data collection across browsers for instance.
Lazy-loading can be implemented sloppily, but browser-native lazy loading is now good enough to be considered optimal.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are used to determine the intrinsic size. The aspect ratio is also affected by the CSS rules, and doesn't necessarily equal the aspect ratio of the intrinsic size.
The width and height attributes are used by the browser to determine the aspect ratio https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2020/03/setting-height-widt...
That's a simplification--they determine the intrinsic size.
The aspect ratio is determined by a combination of CSS rules and the intrinsic size.