Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 238 posts

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#201

Post by hexa22 »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #191
djtriptych wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

browser-native lazy loading is now good enough to be considered optimal The problem is that Google Page Speed dings you for not having lazy loading, and people add crappy JavaScript lazy loading that satisfies Google, but makes the user experience worse. WebP is good iff it improves rendering times (which it does). That's not google's fault really. The problem has been, until recently, Safari didn't support WebP, so…

Most sites would use the user agent for this but I’m pretty sure HTML now has a picture tag which can have multiple sources so the browser can pick the source it wants.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#202

Post by hexa22 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #200
djtriptych wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How does WebP improve rendering times?

It takes less space so it downloads faster.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#203

Post by scott_w »

wyager wrote: post #179
scott_w wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No service involves “nothing but data.” This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it’s governing the rules of business transactions between two entities across borders. Stop throwing out spurious terms to try and cloud the debate.

> No service involves “nothing but data.” May I introduce you to services such as Wikipedia.com and news.ycombinator.com?

Neither of those are just data. One provides information about topics of interest that you can edit, one provides a forum through you can interact with other people.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#204

Post by scott_w »

wyager wrote: post #178
scott_w wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?”

Your model is nonsense - physical goods are not the same as digital goods. Regardless of whether or not your model actually makes sense, an inevitable consequence of your model is that the internet will become siloed at a national level. It sounds like you’re fine with that though.

They’re not the same but they don’t need to be. It’s not my model, it’s just the way the world has always worked.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#205

Post by scott_w »

wyager wrote: post #176
scott_w wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not espousing a legal model at all. I’m just pointing out that literally no government in history has ever said “you can send whatever you want into our country with no restrictions.”

That’s how the internet worked in most countries until recently. In any case, once again it’s irrelevant. Whatever your justification for it, this behavior will lead to internet siloization.

You’re confusing the Internet with services that use the Internet to do business. The former is just a delivery mechanism for the latter, which is what’s being regulated.

Plenty of countries require you to register for sales tax once you establish a presence in their country, whether you sell goods or services. No business operating in this environment thinks it’s unreasonable to do so. Once again “their house, their rules.”

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#206

Post by 8note »

topicseed wrote: post #50

AMP was great for those with very low speed internet. The philosophy and implementation of AMP can be questioned (URL masking, content stored away from the origin) but it did show that users really wanted to click on pages that loaded fast. Core Web Vitals, as a publisher myself, are a nightmare. But at least we know what goes wrong as it's clearly laid right in front of the developer's eyes. So we go and fix thing a…

Even on a slow internet, Ive always wnated a page that loads to be usable.

Waiting once is fine; waiting two times means I can't do something else while it's loading

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#207

Post by topicseed »

8note wrote: post #206
topicseed wrote: post #50

AMP was great for those with very low speed internet. The philosophy and implementation of AMP can be questioned (URL masking, content stored away from the origin) but it did show that users really wanted to click on pages that loaded fast. Core Web Vitals, as a publisher myself, are a nightmare. But at least we know what goes wrong as it's clearly laid right in front of the developer's eyes. So we go and fix thing a…

Even on a slow internet, Ive always wnated a page that loads to be usable. Waiting once is fine; waiting two times means I can't do something else while it's loading

You're right but publishers know their bounce rates so for some, people rarely navigate after landing on their pages. For others, it's almost always the case.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#208

Post by jakelazaroff »

wutwutwutwut wrote: post #159
jakelazaroff wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're technically correct, but people who write pay checks often can be argued with. That's true, but the proliferation of ad tech junk is strong evidence that this is the exception rather than the rule. Capital will persuade labor to do its bidding far more often than not.

Do you have strong evidence that developers think about these things and bring it up with legal? I'd not, then the only strong evidence is that developers are sloppy.

A more charitable interpretation is that most developers simply don’t want to risk their paycheck over a small battle they’d likely lose anyway.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#209

Post by onli »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #190
onli wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware :) My HP Veer had a funny "feature" where after some inactivity it would reload the page when you then scrolled it. It depends though on the content page and on how slow the network is exactly, doesn't it? I often enough preferred to have the text already and decide based on that whether to wait for the images. Async with non-jumping base content (which the core web vitals also cover) is great for that. And…

I'm not talking about browser features, I'm talking about the lazy loading JavaScript libraries that many (most, I'd wager) use.

That goes against that specific implementation then, not against the concept, and not against how the feature should be implemented now.

I was critical at first as well. But I tested it on the site I linked and on other sites with bigger images, and it just worked that well that I stand to what I said. This feature is a net-positive and in most scenarios the loading will either not be noticeable, or it will be an advantage overall.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#210

Post by onli »

bcrl wrote: post #199
onli wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can not scroll faster than images load. You can maybe jump via the scrollbar faster to a page position than images load, but that's it. That's at least with the HTML5 async image standard in Firefox. It's up to the browser after all, so if yours loads images too slow the issue might be there. And sure, if the images are huge they will take a long time to load, but that's also covered by the core web vitals. A sit…

On Friday I completed the install of a new fibre connection for a customer. They had been stuck on a flaky 1.8Mbps ADSL service for years, and the incumbent wanted $30,000 to go 5 poles down the road to their hours. Yes, in 2021 there are still people who can scroll faster than images load.

Granted. Like I specified, I talked about broadband there.

He preferred to wait all the time until images are loaded to start reading articles, with a flaky slow connection, or to try start reading while parts of the site still load? Especially on a slow connection not having to load the images immediately, or at all if the visitor does not scroll down as much, can make browsing so much better.

Post reply on HN