91–100 of 161 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a solution looking for a problem. The internet is plenty fast enough for loading simple news/blog posts. I haven't found find myself thinking "geeze I wish this article would load faster" in a long time.
Are you one of the hundreds of millions of people who browses the internet primarily on a 3g or slower mobile connection in Asia?
AMP is bad for everything. To be clear, this starts by it not being good for anything. Like on the web the form of AMP used by Google and Cloudflare. Starting with google: AMP does not actually make loading any faster. Google just uses it's search monopoly to make it seem so. When you use google search with javascript enabled AMP results are both prioritized in the listing and pre-loaded in the background. This makes…
>AMP is bad for everything. Not everything. I get all the arguments against it and I don't disagree but man ... AMP is fast. It is really fast, and there is something to be said about forcing content providers to build their web application that makes them this fast. >AMP does not actually make loading any faster. What are you talking about. It does make it faster. You feel it, even on my modern Pixel 3 on LTE. Can y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a pain because no one wants it! Emails are for text, if you have something to say you can write it out.
Except that html email is used because it works a lot better (i.e. people DO want it) Try sending your marketing campaign as plain text and then try sending it as carefully crafted HTML mail. Unless your target is a specific small segment of users who love text/plain, HTML will do better and make you more money.
I feel like HTML email is the same way. People think they want it, but in my experience it's an absolutely abysmal experience. Ever been forwarded one of these corporate-type emails where people reply all over the place, each using their own convention of color and typesetting and emphasis markers, with bits of "rich text" signatures and images littered throughout? That's a bloody terrible experience.
Not that plain text email can't be messy, but it's really a situation where less is more. People have to be a little more careful with what they're doing instead of saying "I'll just write this in neon pink and they'll get it".
As for marketing campaigns then yes, I grant you that you can make much more compelling content with more advanced technology but as far as I'm concerned that's cancer so I don't really care about that. I don't really get why anybody would opt into receiving what's effectively spam into their mailbox although maybe I'm wrong about that.
AMP is bad for everything. To be clear, this starts by it not being good for anything. Like on the web the form of AMP used by Google and Cloudflare. Starting with google: AMP does not actually make loading any faster. Google just uses it's search monopoly to make it seem so. When you use google search with javascript enabled AMP results are both prioritized in the listing and pre-loaded in the background. This makes…
> AMP does not actually make loading any faster Every AMP link i click on google loads crazy fast. I don't know why the implementation details or google's incentivizing it would make this not count for some reason. I don't like what amp is doing to the web either but the user experience is really good, pages do load much quicker than your average page and I find myself preferring them a lot over the uncertainty and f…
Plain HTML and one CSS file (read: one, not five, not ten CSS files) minus the JavaScript bloat would also load insanely fast. It doesn't have to be AMP.
Try the basic HTML verson of Gmail -- it loads about 5-10X faster than the AJAX version.
Email providers that only allow access to your emails using their special clients (instead of, e.g. imap) are also bad for email.
Now if this is one of these "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics like gmail seems to be doing then yeah obviously it's bad in the long run but I really don't think any other email service but Google's can really pretend to do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AMP does not actually make loading any faster Every AMP link i click on google loads crazy fast. I don't know why the implementation details or google's incentivizing it would make this not count for some reason. I don't like what amp is doing to the web either but the user experience is really good, pages do load much quicker than your average page and I find myself preferring them a lot over the uncertainty and f…
Less JavaScript bloat, I think. AMP is mostly static content. Plain HTML and one CSS file (read: one, not five, not ten CSS files) minus the JavaScript bloat would also load insanely fast. It doesn't have to be AMP. Try the basic HTML verson of Gmail -- it loads about 5-10X faster than the AJAX version.
Otherwise all that remains is an echo chamber.
Every thread about AMP on Hacker News goes exactly the same way. It’s annoying, repetitive. But here’s the thing: while I get criticisms about AMP for web, pretty much none of them apply to AMP for email. The author of this article keeps bringing up points about AMP for web as if they have anything to do with AMP for email. AMP for email basically does one thing: it enables interactive emails without allowing arbitra…
So now email clients need to implement a javascript engine as well as an html engine? For what benefit to users? At what cost to users? AMP for email solves a nonexistent problem.
Webmail can do JS. Clients using full HTML engines like MSHTML, Gecko or Webkit shouldn't have an issue either. Text-based clients are the obvious exception, and they should still be rendering the same plaintext mail they've always been rendering.
Clients can also not implement AMP for e-mail, which I imagine is going to be the case for plenty of them.
>For what benefit to users?
Better interactivity in e-mails. Replying to e-mails is notoriously tricky to get right and often confusing, due to interactions with email threads, CC/BCC, address spoofing, etc. Interactivity via hyperlinks is acceptable but not ideal, especially for services that are actually performing operations on a GET request, which I'd argue is unwise. But also, hyperlinks in e-mails often contain sensitive tokens, which are easy to accidentally forward.
AMP interactions should be free of unrelated junk that e-mail replies would contain and can offer more functions. As for security, at the very least, Gmail strips off AMP during forwarding, which should make it safer to include tokens for interacting with e-mails in AMP payloads. Obviously that does no good for purely sensitive mail like password reset, but it's still an improvement.
>At what cost to users?
HTML and plaintext e-mail should continue to function for the foreseeable future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you one of the hundreds of millions of people who browses the internet primarily on a 3g or slower mobile connection in Asia?
This would largely be a good case if not for the fact that it is pushed on everyone, everywhere; without a choice.