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

Standardizing lessons learned from AMP

amphtml.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 95 posts

Re: Standardizing lessons learned from AMP

#61

Post by beokop »

xab9 wrote: post #39

I wish one day marketing, print designers and useless business architects would just step back and let me build a damn page. No trackers, no spying, no fancy multilayered parallax video scrollers, no animated video carousels, no fucking ads, no taboola shit, no related clickbait articles, no tag cloud sidebar, no ooh-so-shiny bleeding edge web frameworks that has a lifecycle of a single year (megabytes of minified an…

We chose to use PHP for our site redesign after using React, Elm and Jekyll in other projects. It’s really liberating. No spending days setting up a build/deploy process. Gets out of your way unless you actually need it. Everything including the kitchen sink included. Pre-installed on all Macs. Our designer can code and deploy changes by himself.

I used to hate PHP. Then I tried the alternatives.

Re: Standardizing lessons learned from AMP

#62

Post by walterbell »

Repost:

There's an IETF proposal for certificate-signed web content (Web Packages) which can be rendered offline. The browser address bar will no longer show the URL of the web server (e.g. Google AMP), it will show the authenticated origin of the Web Package.

2017 IETF proposal by Google: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-webpackage-use-cas...

2018 Chrome demo at AMP event: https://youtube.com/watch?&t=9m03s&v=pr5cIRruBsc

There may be overlap in goals with W3C Web Publications, which is working to converge EPUB and Web: https://w3c.github.io/wpub/

Re: Standardizing lessons learned from AMP

#63

Post by Ajedi32 »

tyingq wrote: post #51
Ajedi32 wrote: post #35

So, this is pretty much everything the HN crowd was asking for, right? Pull AMP apart into a bunch of web standards and switch Google search to promote any content which follows those standards rather than AMP content specifically? Why are all the top comments so negative?

“Why are all the top comments so negative?” Google could still be planning to keep the top banner, the left/right swipe to your competitor functionally for carousels, etc. That top banner, for example, has an [x] button that end users expect to dismiss the banner and stay on the page. Instead, it goes back to Google. The negativity is because they aren’t being explicit as to what is actually being delivered. They are…

In that case I'd suggest that perhaps they just aren't understanding exactly what's being announced here.

Eliminating the top banner was something AMP announced they were going to do _months_ ago, just as soon as they could do so without negatively impacting performance: https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/improving-urls-for-...

And AMP having "the right to run their own arbitrary JS on YOUR site" is not something that can happen when you're not even being required to use AMP in the first place:

> we now feel ready to take the next step and work to support more instant-loading content not based on AMP technology

[emphasis mine]

Re: Standardizing lessons learned from AMP

#64

Post by dictum »

jashkenas wrote: post #16

Just for kicks, folks, let's collect all of the adjectives, adverbs and qualifiers used in this post to describe ~AMP: * a leading format * consistently excellent * invest strongly in ... * well-lit * user-first * instant-loading * tightly-integrated * highly-optimized * great * well-lit * great * well documented * easily deployable * validatable * opinionated about user-first principles * fast development * constant…

This reads like a page from https://www.amazon.com/Words-that-Sell-Products-Services/dp/...

Re: Standardizing lessons learned from AMP

#65

Post by [deleted] »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #35

So, this is pretty much everything the HN crowd was asking for, right? Pull AMP apart into a bunch of web standards and switch Google search to promote any content which follows those standards rather than AMP content specifically? Why are all the top comments so negative?

[deleted]

Re: Standardizing lessons learned from AMP

#66

Post by madeofpalk »

x0x0 wrote: post #46
dfabulich wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not telling you to trust them. I'm certainly not telling you to use AMP. I'm just saying, they've done a lot of work on this Web Packaging thing, and it's a pretty good replacement for AMP. You should check it out. It's hard to see why they'd do all of that work of replacing AMP if your theory is right and they just loooved stealing those URLs.

Because 1 - they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar 2 - the internet isn't quite as dumb as google hoped 3 - thank god for the EU & Margrethe Vestager. Maybe we can talk her into adding a zero. ps -- that status, as near as I can tell, of the amp url fix is vaporware. Deployed yet? Nope. So let's wait to get all triumphant until their supposed solution is deployed. https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/01/09/…

How so?

The user experience they wanted to achieve (provide an Apple News and Facebook Instant Articles experience on the web) was not technically possible. They added the hacks and workarounds that is AMP + AMP Cache + News carousel prerendering to Google to create something competitive.

Now they're working with the standards bodies to remove the need for the hacks they've developed. Web Packaging (for loading and verifying a bundled website - this is the preloading part) and iFrame Promotion (for 'promoting' an iFrame to the root browsing context - this is the 'clicking the search result and having the resulting page display instantly' part) is really cool and it'll be great to have this available to everyone without the downsides that Google's current solution has (URL fucking)

Re: Standardizing lessons learned from AMP

#67

Post by themacguffinman »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #49
Ajedi32 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, AMP has succeeded at getting publishers to deliver fast and performant pages where other efforts did not. I dispute the idea that technological factors are not at play here. AMP's preloading and automatic CDN caching system have a pretty big impact on load times, and its technically-enforced restrictions on what sort of performance-impacting content publishers are allowed to include in their pages seems to d…

The fact that Google Search is a monopoly is not a technological factor. Google gives preference to AMP sites on Google Search, therefore publishers must implement AMP. I actually have a lot less issue with AMP as a technological solution, as I do with the Google's "our way or the highway" treatment of the Internet. Google uses both it's search monopoly and it's browser monopoly (and often, both at the same time) to…

You're really missing the broader context here, which was the rise of wholly proprietary news formats like Facebook Articles and Apple News. This was Google's entry into the market that was very much #teamweb vs Facebook and Apple's #teamproprietary because it based itself on open web standards and had a clear pathway towards standardization (that you see materializing in the OP's article).

This was the best solution the web could hope for that balanced open standard concerns with the necessary commercial backing that advantaged AMP's proprietary competitors.

Re: Standardizing lessons learned from AMP

#68

Post by [deleted] »

tyingq wrote: post #51
Ajedi32 wrote: post #35

So, this is pretty much everything the HN crowd was asking for, right? Pull AMP apart into a bunch of web standards and switch Google search to promote any content which follows those standards rather than AMP content specifically? Why are all the top comments so negative?

“Why are all the top comments so negative?” Google could still be planning to keep the top banner, the left/right swipe to your competitor functionally for carousels, etc. That top banner, for example, has an [x] button that end users expect to dismiss the banner and stay on the page. Instead, it goes back to Google. The negativity is because they aren’t being explicit as to what is actually being delivered. They are…

[deleted]

Re: Standardizing lessons learned from AMP

#69

Post by sctb »

dmitriid wrote: post #10
dmitriid wrote: post #6

A lot if big words disguised as good intentions. There’s nothing fast, instant, or open about AMP. The latest article debunking those myths: https://ferdychristant.com/amp-the-missing-controversy-3b424... Google’s fully opaque process around AMP for email (yes, it’s a thing): https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13597 and https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13600

Hello, Google’s AMP team. I see you’ve been busy downvoting my comment ;) Too bad you spend most of your time running away from uncomfortable questions and defending your overlord’s increasingly dubious and morally questionable practices.

Please don't break the guidelines like this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Standardizing lessons learned from AMP

#70

Post by beokop »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #56
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that Google Search is a monopoly is not a technological factor. Google gives preference to AMP sites on Google Search, therefore publishers must implement AMP. I actually have a lot less issue with AMP as a technological solution, as I do with the Google's "our way or the highway" treatment of the Internet. Google uses both it's search monopoly and it's browser monopoly (and often, both at the same time) to…

Fair point, but that problem (at least as far as AMP is concerned) is exactly the one this blog post is addressing: Google is planning to stop pushing AMP specifically in its search results and instead push a set of open web standards which achieve the same technical goals.

Even so, I’m tired of jumping through hoops to adhere to bullshit standards that make life hard without any actual benefit. We have HTML and CSS, why do we need AMP? How does my personal webpage benefit from HTTPS? Why did they enforce mandatory HTTPS across the entire .dev TLD in WebKit, breaking my local test env, when it’s only used by a few internal projects at Google?

They seem to have a vested interest in making web development harder than it needs to be.

Post reply on HN