Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday May 25 2017, @05:48AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-more-you-tighten-your-grip... dept.

There's been a good deal of ongoing discussion about Google AMP – Accelerated Mobile Pages.

Quite a few high-profile web developers have this year weighted in with criticism and some, following a Google conference dedicated to AMP, have cautioned users about diving in with both feet.

These, in my view, don't go far enough in stating the problem and I feel this needs to be said very clearly: Google's AMP is bad – bad in a potentially web-destroying way. Google AMP is bad news for how the web is built, it's bad news for publishers of credible online content, and it's bad news for consumers of that content. Google AMP is only good for one party: Google. Google, and possibly, purveyors of fake news.

[...] What it is, is a way for Google to obfuscate your website, usurp your content and remove any lingering notions of personal credibility from the web.

If that appeals to you, here's what you need to do. First, get rid of all your HTML and render your content in a subset of HTML that Google has approved along with a few tags it invented. Because what do those pesky standards boards know? Trust Google, it knows what it's doing. And if you don't, consider yourself not part of the future of search results.

Why a subset of HTML you ask? Well, mostly because web developers suck at their jobs and have loaded the web with a ton of JavaScript no one wants. Can't fault Google for wanting to change that. That part I can support. The less JavaScript the better.

So far AMP actually sounds appealing. Except that, hilariously, to create an AMP page you have to load a, wait for it, yes a JavaScript file from Google. Pinboard founder Maciej Cegłowski already recreated the Google AMP demo page without the Google AMP JavaScript and, unsurprisingly, it's faster than Google's version.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
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: 3, Disagree) by Pino P on Thursday May 25 2017, @02:48PM (8 children)

    by Pino P (4721) on Thursday May 25 2017, @02:48PM (#515480) Journal

    Just build proper webpages with HTML and CSS

    That's fine if you want a static web page. But a lot of users demand dynamic features, and many such features require script to be practical. In particular, a form submission and full page reload for each interaction isn't always practical. In addition, without script to measure scroll position, how should a site that has sponsors reassure its sponsors that viewers are seeing their messages?

    and stick to the standards.

    That depends on how you define "standards", particularly when your page relies on standards that browser publishers have failed to implement according to caniuse.com.

    • SVG is a W3C Recommendation, but IE 11 and Edge reportedly have severe defects in scaling SVG files.
    • CSS Grid is a W3C Candidate Recommendation, but IE 11 and Edge still use an outdated version and hide it behind a proprietary prefix.
    • Opus audio is a standard (RFC 6716) but completely unsupported in Apple WebKit. Nor does Apple WebKit support any video codecs with a royalty-free encoder.
    • <input type="date"> is part of the HTML Living Standard but not available in IE 11, Firefox, or Safari for macOS.
    • Custom protocol handling, such as allowing a webmail site to handle URIs with the mailto: scheme, is part of the HTML Living Standard. But IE 11, Edge, and Apple WebKit fail to support it.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Disagree=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by fyngyrz on Thursday May 25 2017, @03:17PM (2 children)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday May 25 2017, @03:17PM (#515495) Journal

    But a lot of users demand dynamic features

    AMP is not required to provide dynamic features.

    Also, and of course this is a choice, but you don't have to provide dynamic features; those users aren't the boss of you. You can provide a fast, efficient web page instead. People really like those, too. Just an observation. :)

    That depends on how you define "standards"

    Well, personally, I don't define "standards" as "some idea Google just had."

    particularly when your page relies on standards that browser publishers have failed to implement according to caniuse.com.

    Sounds like someone is relying on things that need fixed, not things that need replaced with something else that does not enjoy broad support.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Pino P on Thursday May 25 2017, @04:08PM (1 child)

      by Pino P (4721) on Thursday May 25 2017, @04:08PM (#515525) Journal

      AMP is not required to provide dynamic features.

      I wasn't implying that it was. I was only pointing out that some features require script, not just HTML and CSS.

      Also, and of course this is a choice, but you don't have to provide dynamic features; those users aren't the boss of you.

      Users are the boss of any site operator that relies on revenue from users or from advertisers to cover the cost of continuing to maintain the site.

      • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday May 25 2017, @08:20PM

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday May 25 2017, @08:20PM (#515681) Journal

        Users are the boss of any site operator that relies on revenue from users or from advertisers to cover the cost of continuing to maintain the site.

        At this point, the discussion would turn to strength of one's ethics vs. indirect coercion to create things somewhere in the range of annoying to outright malware.

        I'll spare you. I'm sure you can have that conversation entirely on your own. :)

  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 25 2017, @04:10PM (4 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Thursday May 25 2017, @04:10PM (#515528) Journal

    how should a site that has sponsors reassure its sponsors that viewers are seeing their messages?

    Translation, without scripting, how can they simulate having an asshole standing next to each reader flipping the page back to the ad while they're trying to read? The answer is, they shouldn't. Better placement of the ad on the page in the first place is less annoying and obviates the need for the scripting.

    As for dynamic content, there's no reason it can't be done well and rely on standards and proper CSS to render. The problem isn't the use of scripting, the problem is using 23 layers of opaque scripting and one trick pony type frameworksIn other words, quit using frameworks and cookbooks without understanding. Actually learn the scripting language (Javascript for now) and how to program and it will be fine. Cargo cult programming is not and has never been a good idea. Shoddy work produces shoddy results, film at 11. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

    There have always been crappy browsers out there. There has always been a subset of HTML that pretty much works for all of them. If you need to get fancier than that, you just have to accept that not all browsers will be able to handle it. Some idiot wants to join the Indy 500 on a 5 wheeled pennyfarthing powered by squirrels. Do we change the rules of the race to allow it or do we just accept that he's a kook? (and yes, a MS browser is definitely a 5 wheeled pennyfarthing powered by squirrels)

    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday May 25 2017, @07:03PM (3 children)

      by Pino P (4721) on Thursday May 25 2017, @07:03PM (#515630) Journal

      Better placement of the ad on the page in the first place is less annoying

      Let me state it more precisely: If the placement is below the fold, then without scripting, how can anyone know whether the scroll position has reached the placement?

      There have always been crappy browsers out there.

      Users of iOS are more likely than users of Android to spend real money using the device, both on apps[1] and on physical goods.[2] But users of iOS tend to be stuck with browsers that are behind the curve because all wrap Apple WebKit.

      Some idiot wants to join the Indy 500 on a 5 wheeled pennyfarthing powered by squirrels. Do we change the rules of the race to allow it or do we just accept that he's a kook?

      In cases where rich and kook are correlated, the cost-benefit analysis is more likely to conclude "change the rules".

      [1] "Apple App Store revenue per user vs. Android" by Kif Leswing [businessinsider.com]
      [2] "iOS Devices Accounted for 77% of Mobile E-Commerce Orders During the Holidays" by Jim Tanous [macobserver.com]

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 25 2017, @08:21PM (2 children)

        by sjames (2882) on Thursday May 25 2017, @08:21PM (#515683) Journal

        I can't think of much in e-commerce that webkit can't handle just fine. Quit trying to be whiz-bang and just sell the product and things will be fine.

        How ever did newspapers and magazines ever manage to sell ads without scripting, I wonder? But if that's all you wanna know, it should't require multiple frameworks and 30 seconds to load. Just a few simple lines of code should do it.

        In cases where rich and kook are correlated, the cost-benefit analysis is more likely to conclude "change the rules".

        Only if you don't count drastically reduced attendance next year as a cost.

        • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday May 26 2017, @04:50AM (1 child)

          by Pino P (4721) on Friday May 26 2017, @04:50AM (#515834) Journal

          How ever did newspapers and magazines ever manage to sell ads without scripting, I wonder?

          By not having competition from another medium that promises eye-catching animation and detailed analytics. Notice how many newspapers have folded, merged, or become web-only over the past decade and a half. (Citations can be found in the article "Decline of newspapers" [wikipedia.org].)

          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday May 26 2017, @10:56PM

            by sjames (2882) on Friday May 26 2017, @10:56PM (#516179) Journal

            Newspapers still manage to sell ads, their problem is selling newspapers in a world where you can read the AP and UPI stories practically anywhere.

            But, as I said if you're just seeing who looks below the fold the scripting can be very simple and lightweight IF you know what you're doing.