Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Google Attempting to Standardize Features of Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP)

posted by martyb on Monday March 12 2018, @11:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the embrace,-extend... dept.

takyon writes:

Google promises publishers an alternative to AMP

Google's AMP project is not uncontroversial. Users often love it because it makes mobile sites load almost instantly. Publishers often hate it because they feel like they are giving Google too much control in return for better placement on its search pages. Now Google proposes to bring some of the lessons it learned from AMP to the web as a whole. Ideally, this means that users will profit from Google's efforts and see faster non-AMP sites across the web (and not just in their search engines).

Publishers, however, will once again have to adopt a whole new set of standards for their sites, but with this, Google is also giving them a new path to be included in the increasingly important Top Stories carousel on its mobile search results pages.

"Based on what we learned from AMP, we now feel ready to take the next step and work to support more instant-loading content not based on AMP technology in areas of Google Search designed for this, like the Top Stories carousel," AMP tech lead Malte Ubl writes today. "This content will need to follow a set of future web standards and meet a set of objective performance and user experience criteria to be eligible."

Also at Search Engine Land and The Verge.

Related: Kill Google AMP Before It Kills the Web
Google Acquires Relay Media to Convert Ordinary Web Pages to AMP Pages
Google Bringing Accelerated Mobile Pages to Email

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Google Attempting to Standardize Features of Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 33 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday March 13 2018, @05:09PM (2 children)

    by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday March 13 2018, @05:09PM (#651883) Journal

    One of things I've found successful, was reactionary and precise pushback that doesn't remove the quality of life one has been accustomed to.

    Would it also be considered "precise pushback" to block scripts that the end user isn't allowed to understand and improve [gnu.org]?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by cocaine overdose on Tuesday March 13 2018, @07:16PM (1 child)

    by cocaine overdose (6886) <cocaineoverdose@protonmail.com> on Tuesday March 13 2018, @07:16PM (#651941) Homepage Journal
    Less precise than uBlock, more precise than NoScript. It would take considerable effort, as Stallman said, to identify non-free JS scripts and return you have another one of those "intangibles." It's one of my gripes with the FSF and GPL. Stallman tells us "this is bad, this is bad, but this one thing here is good. Get rid of the bad" without lending a hand. The FSF is like a little girl that declares herself queen, during a riveting game of house. "I want this and this and this, but not this." "Yes, your majesty, but how are supposed get all those?" "I don't care, I want it." Anyway, aside aside, even if you could do it reliably, you're now back to the NoScript dilemma. Or should I say uMatrix dilemma? uMatrix is one tool that can be used to further the blocking of non-free JS, but if you've used it before, I'm sure you've noticed how even the most arbitrary website functionality is dependent on JS, and if you block even one the whole things just doesn't load. The only thing I've found it to be good for is blocking analytics and "high risk" JS.

    You're not gonna get people to disavow JS using a logical argument. They're going to have to get consecutively more and more sick of it, until everyone drops it for the newest flavor of [insert hyped up tech here].

    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:16PM

      by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:16PM (#652405) Journal

      It would take considerable effort, as Stallman said, to identify non-free JS scripts

      "Non-free" is hard. "Not machine-readably labeled as free" is easy. Block everything by default and allow only those scripts whose developers have specified their license [gnu.org]. I'd be interested to see which would be the first adtech company to answer the LibreJS challenge.