151–160 of 360 posts
Maybe I don't understand AMP, but what value does it bring over having a very lean CSS and keep JS to the strict minimum? Last time I checked, a plain vanilla HTML page with a bit of embedded CSS (and perhaps a few async JS functions for stats) is lightning fast even on mobile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So lets say AMP was not invented. Web pages have been notoriously slow on mobile for a decade. Where is this open standard to make pages lod faster? where is W3 or Mozilla? Its been a decade. if there was a competituve open standard I would be against AMP but there isnt.
> Where is this open standard to make pages lod faster? Not filling a page of what is effectively 80KB static text-content with 20MBs of JS, fonts, tracking-code and other "assets" would be a good start. The web isn't slow. People deliberately create slow web-pages because they care more about user-tracking and "fancy" technology than they care about user-experience. And making Google a pre-requisite for any web-page…
I imagine if you expand and codify this idea, you will come up with something very close to AMP. I'm not sure if you're against the idea of AMP/AMP-like standard, or against Google's execution of it.
Maybe I don't understand AMP, but what value does it bring over having a very lean CSS and keep JS to the strict minimum? Last time I checked, a plain vanilla HTML page with a bit of embedded CSS (and perhaps a few async JS functions for stats) is lightning fast even on mobile.
Example: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/26/middleeast/western-wall-is...
That link is in the frontpage of cnn.com right now. I disabled my cache, disabled uBlock and refreshed the page. 329 network requests and 3.9 megabytes of data transfer later, the page is still loading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you are forced to login to FB, is the same true with AMP?
If a Facebook post is public, you don't need to log in to see it.
EDIT: I'm curious about the downvotes - care to elaborate what you disagree with? The author indicated that SEO was a driving force for using AMP, so I think that being curious about the outcome would be acceptable...
The author has some very valid points against AMP from a technical standpoint, but for me there is a single reason that is sufficient: the Web is, and should stay, free and open . Indeed, I'm having really hard time trying to understand how people can be fine with AMP while fighting for the net neutrality and so on.
Full stop. You choose to participate in AMP. You can't choose to not be throttled by an ISP, or to bypass censorship.
Since your site is actually going through Google's cache, they could add any additional tracking, etc they like, I'm sure they're already doing this. If you don't run Adsense or Google Analytics or anything else Google JS already on your site this gives them a new opportunity to further track users behaviour with a seemingly "friendly" mobile method. It's all about tracking users and selling more ads while keeping ey…
> I'm sure they're already doing this. Could you verify that? It should be a matter of popping open the Developer tools.
Why would anybody enable it to begin with? There is absolutely no reason for sites such as the one linked here to have AMP enabled. It's a pox on the web and Google has enough power as it is. The sooner AMP dies the better. If you want your site to load faster get rid of the cruft .
I enabled it on https://www.gitignore.io a few months ago because it suggested that it would improve my mobile users experience. After posts like these, I think it's time to take it back down.