4 ms·

Happy to address the close button: You are on a search page, you go on layer deep by clicking. The close button goes back. I don't see what else it should do.

Happy to address the close button: You are on a search page, you go on layer deep by clicking. The close button goes back. I don't see what else it should do. Mind you that I do understand that a link to the origin server would be a good improvement (and I've stated that in the post). I'm not sure what you find disingenuous. AMP are just web pages saying "HEY I A AMP, please use treat me as AMP". You can publish the same bytes minus the "HEY I A AMP" and get the old behavior.

stuartaxelowen 10y ago
The internet is about hyperlinks, not hierarchical views - this move by Google feels very disingenuous.
poxrud 10y ago
"You can publish the same bytes minus the "HEY I A AMP" and get the old behavior". Yes but then you won't get the AMP icon next to your page when it comes up in the search results. Over time users will become conditioned to prefer clicking on AMP enabled links. With the icon you are basically categorizing the search results into "really fast sites" and "regular speed or slow sites", even though it is perfectly possible to achieve the same AMP speeds without using AMP.
callalex 10y ago
Would you agree that the completely standards compliant, well-understood-by-users back button already replicates that behavior perfectly? Why does the close button have to have a different icon for the exact same purpose, if not to deceive?
- mthoms 10y ago
  Please address this question @cramforce. Why are you introducing a new and totally unnecessary display element when the back button is built right in to the browser and everyone already knows how it works? No matter how hard I try, I can't think of any good reason for this banner. But hey, to the right of that X there sure is a lot of room for placing an adsense ad! What a strange co-incidence.
  - cramforce 10y ago
    The banner is needed to show the logical origin, given that the browser is still on Google.com and the article is shown in a iframe (to enable pre-rendering). Our native apps do not have this constraint and thus don't have the extra bar. I can't give you a 100% reason for the X. I know multiple UI versions were tested and this did well.
    - mthoms 10y ago
      >to show the logical origin, given that the browser is still on Google.com and the article is shown in a iframe What an amazing coincidence that this great new tech requires users to remain on google.com "for technical reasons".
      - cramforce 10y ago
        If you have an alternative implementation strategy that enables pre-rendering and swiping while showing the source article origin I am all ears. We can do it in our native apps, and we do.
        mthoms 10y ago
        I'm not familiar yet with the pre-rendering functionality so I can't comment except to ask - why are you making this contentious feature a requirement of using AMP? Why not allow publishers to opt out of the Google CDN + pre-rendering but still retain all the other benefits of AMP? This type of progressive enhancement would likely benefit more sites/users instead of an all-or-nothing approach.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
callahad 10y ago
Why can't I use AMP but opt out of the AMP Cache? Seems strange that I have to choose between AMP and actually receiving my own traffic. I guess I could use AMP but intentionally break my page's validation so it wouldn't be cached, but then I wouldn't get the special flag on SERPs, which effectively penalizes non-AMP sites.
- cramforce 10y ago
  There are things that can be done with AMP, that cannot be done with regular fast results (and you can very much build pages that load faster than AMP not only as fast!): - pre-rendering - result swiping
mthoms 10y ago
>The close button goes back. No. Just no. The back button goes back. Period. The close button closes modal windows overlaying the original page and originating from the same site. I can already hear you countering "But.. since the content is served from google.com due to caching, this pattern is technically correct". Which is tantamount to saying "We serve the content. So we can add whatever the heck we want" Very frigging clever Google. Well done. /s
- cramforce 10y ago
  The UI logically and visually belongs to the opening app, indeed. If the page itself opens a modal it opens on top of the bar and it's close button closes that modal.
  - snappy173 10y ago
    but it's not an "opening app" ... it's a search engine. with links to other sites. ... or is it?
    - shostack 10y ago
      Philosophical question... If I hit the search bar on my Android device, and it opens Google Search in an app interface, is it an app, is it a search engine, or is it both? What about with their new strategy of integrating Google Search more closely into apps? How about then? The line is so blurry as to be irrelevant. The wording on the responses seem to be on a different side of that philosophical argument, but I'm not sure it is that black and white.
biot 10y ago
Any time I see a website with a bar that has an "X" on it (think of all those "this site uses cookies..." bars) I expect clicking "X" to dismiss the bar, allowing me to see just the content minus the bar. If it took me back to the previous page, I would find that behavior surprising.
- jack1243star 10y ago
  I second this. Google Translate does this, I don't see the reason for such inconsistency.

stuartaxelowen 10y ago

The internet is about hyperlinks, not hierarchical views - this move by Google feels very disingenuous.

poxrud 10y ago

"You can publish the same bytes minus the "HEY I A AMP" and get the old behavior". Yes but then you won't get the AMP icon next to your page when it comes up in the search results. Over time users will become conditioned to prefer clicking on AMP enabled links. With the icon you are basically categorizing the search results into "really fast sites" and "regular speed or slow sites", even though it is perfectly possible to achieve the same AMP speeds without using AMP.

callalex 10y ago

Would you agree that the completely standards compliant, well-understood-by-users back button already replicates that behavior perfectly? Why does the close button have to have a different icon for the exact same purpose, if not to deceive?

mthoms 10y ago
Please address this question @cramforce. Why are you introducing a new and totally unnecessary display element when the back button is built right in to the browser and everyone already knows how it works? No matter how hard I try, I can't think of any good reason for this banner. But hey, to the right of that X there sure is a lot of room for placing an adsense ad! What a strange co-incidence.
- cramforce 10y ago
  The banner is needed to show the logical origin, given that the browser is still on Google.com and the article is shown in a iframe (to enable pre-rendering). Our native apps do not have this constraint and thus don't have the extra bar. I can't give you a 100% reason for the X. I know multiple UI versions were tested and this did well.
  - mthoms 10y ago
    >to show the logical origin, given that the browser is still on Google.com and the article is shown in a iframe What an amazing coincidence that this great new tech requires users to remain on google.com "for technical reasons".
    - cramforce 10y ago
      If you have an alternative implementation strategy that enables pre-rendering and swiping while showing the source article origin I am all ears. We can do it in our native apps, and we do.
      - mthoms 10y ago
        I'm not familiar yet with the pre-rendering functionality so I can't comment except to ask - why are you making this contentious feature a requirement of using AMP? Why not allow publishers to opt out of the Google CDN + pre-rendering but still retain all the other benefits of AMP? This type of progressive enhancement would likely benefit more sites/users instead of an all-or-nothing approach.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

callahad 10y ago

Why can't I use AMP but opt out of the AMP Cache? Seems strange that I have to choose between AMP and actually receiving my own traffic. I guess I could use AMP but intentionally break my page's validation so it wouldn't be cached, but then I wouldn't get the special flag on SERPs, which effectively penalizes non-AMP sites.

cramforce 10y ago
There are things that can be done with AMP, that cannot be done with regular fast results (and you can very much build pages that load faster than AMP not only as fast!): - pre-rendering - result swiping

mthoms 10y ago

>The close button goes back. No. Just no. The back button goes back. Period. The close button closes modal windows overlaying the original page and originating from the same site. I can already hear you countering "But.. since the content is served from google.com due to caching, this pattern is technically correct". Which is tantamount to saying "We serve the content. So we can add whatever the heck we want" Very frigging clever Google. Well done. /s

cramforce 10y ago
The UI logically and visually belongs to the opening app, indeed. If the page itself opens a modal it opens on top of the bar and it's close button closes that modal.
- snappy173 10y ago
  but it's not an "opening app" ... it's a search engine. with links to other sites. ... or is it?
  - shostack 10y ago
    Philosophical question... If I hit the search bar on my Android device, and it opens Google Search in an app interface, is it an app, is it a search engine, or is it both? What about with their new strategy of integrating Google Search more closely into apps? How about then? The line is so blurry as to be irrelevant. The wording on the responses seem to be on a different side of that philosophical argument, but I'm not sure it is that black and white.

biot 10y ago

Any time I see a website with a bar that has an "X" on it (think of all those "this site uses cookies..." bars) I expect clicking "X" to dismiss the bar, allowing me to see just the content minus the bar. If it took me back to the previous page, I would find that behavior surprising.

jack1243star 10y ago
I second this. Google Translate does this, I don't see the reason for such inconsistency.