11–20 of 169 posts
AMP specifications allow for other cache servers, of which CloudFlare[0] has recently implemented one. You could implement your own if you like. AMP also specifies that the canonical page URL should be used when sharing, though the cached URL is currently what's shown in the browser. Their last developer update[1] said they're working to address this, however for all relevant purposes Google's own systems already cur…
Google doesn't get news. The people who work on google News clearly don't consume it, barring the unlikely possibility that they're masochists who enjoy making everyday tools work more and more poorly.
Out of interest, is there anyone who wants to defend the current Google AMP (not the concept of lighter webpages, but how google has gone about it?) I haven't found anyone yet personally.
Just noticed a few days ago one of the major Australian newspapers started using AMP. I do understand the negativities around Google's AMP, but the speed was.. blazing fast. I can't help to think that for a user who may not be familiar with all the underlying issues, it is a pretty good user experience in terms of the speed alone.
Out of interest, is there anyone who wants to defend the current Google AMP (not the concept of lighter webpages, but how google has gone about it?) I haven't found anyone yet personally.
Yes, it may be possible to fix it over time. But I see AMP and Medium as clean, lightweight platforms that developers/marketers want to emulate and users will start to demand.
From a user experience, you definitely can't beat the speed of AMP delivered content. So it's a high bar to beat. But if it forces content providers to up their game, I see it as a good thing.
I guess the scary point, that hasn't explicitly been mentioned, is what happens when a good portion (maybe not a majority) of content is AMP-enabled. Is it something we transition away from, or is it here to stay? Will non-AMP, but fast pages be second-class citizens in the new AMP-era?
Out of interest, is there anyone who wants to defend the current Google AMP (not the concept of lighter webpages, but how google has gone about it?) I haven't found anyone yet personally.
Just noticed a few days ago one of the major Australian newspapers started using AMP. I do understand the negativities around Google's AMP, but the speed was.. blazing fast. I can't help to think that for a user who may not be familiar with all the underlying issues, it is a pretty good user experience in terms of the speed alone.
Out of interest, is there anyone who wants to defend the current Google AMP (not the concept of lighter webpages, but how google has gone about it?) I haven't found anyone yet personally.
I was reading one on google news and I wanted to share it with you guys but I couldn't figure out how to get a URL for the story.
I feel that many web developers don't realise that simple HTML and CSS is often all you need to make clear, fast loading pages. No complicated tricks or techniques required. You can make the page reasonably pleasant in appearance too.
Think of the sites you often visit: news stories, blogs, magazine-style sites, discussion sites. These are mostly text, not web apps.
I hope I'm not hijacking this thread, but I'd like to ask if readers find the web page links below fast to load on their mobile phones? They don't use AMP.
I created the pages below as a test because I was (and still am) frustrated by the slow page-loading speeds when using my phone with a 3G connection.
The page links below represent a common article/blog/report style of page. There's about 2500+ words on the page.
The page content is CC licensed but the pictures from the original synopsis are not included despite the references in the text (since this was just a test)
So is it fast?
Version A: http://interfacesketch.com/test/energy-book-synopsis-a.html
Here is an identical version to the above but one that loads custom fonts (approx 40kb extra). Is this slower?
Version B: http://interfacesketch.com/test/energy-book-synopsis-b.html