4 ms·

No, that’s never the argument I’ve seen. It’s always been fairly well accepted that fast pages are good and AMP helps to make pages fast. The common argument -

No, that’s never the argument I’ve seen. It’s always been fairly well accepted that fast pages are good and AMP helps to make pages fast. The common argument - one which I unreservedly agree with - is that pages could be made fast without the use of AMP and especially the web-breaking nature of Google’s implementation. The fact that users like AMP is not material - the problems that it causes are not ones they are going to see in the short term.

endorphone 9y ago
But the common argument is nonsensical. Yes of course sites could make non-abusive, readable content. But they don't. The non-stickiness of the web, coupled with a low attention span of users, has yielded a sort of tragedy of the commons. AMP is a standard to say "this can't do that". We should have an HTMLite of the sort like AMP. Like how Google Gears became a variety of accepted web standards, it should build into something rather than the nonsensical claim that it does nothing.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  That’s fine. I agree; “HTML-lite” is fine, and most of AMP is even an acceptable implementation of that concept. But in practice, the way AMP is used has fundamental problems. Like the fact that content is hosted by a third party, or that links are broken, or that scrolling is wrecked. I like the speed of AMP; the implementation is catastrophic and I wish dearly that I could disable its appearance in Google search results.
  - akras14 9y ago
    +1 would love to see HTML light, and that's why I initially assumed AMP to be. Edit: Now that I think about it, Twitter does try to use AMP as HTML light, since they don't use the cache. Yet I think AMP is does not make a great HTML light, likely because it has to support the cache use case.
  - hdhzy 9y ago
    > ... I wish dearly that I could disable its appearance in Google search results. You can if you use https://encrypted.google.com https://encrypted.google.com
fiddlerwoaroof 9y ago
Amp doesn't really break the web any more does the trend of writing sites that generate some HTML boilerplate and then load in all the real content through JavaScript: if anything, AMP is closer to the original model of the web as a collection of interlinked documents than any SPA is.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  That sort of thing is also incredibly shit though.

endorphone 9y ago

But the common argument is nonsensical. Yes of course sites could make non-abusive, readable content. But they don't. The non-stickiness of the web, coupled with a low attention span of users, has yielded a sort of tragedy of the commons. AMP is a standard to say "this can't do that". We should have an HTMLite of the sort like AMP. Like how Google Gears became a variety of accepted web standards, it should build into something rather than the nonsensical claim that it does nothing.

matthewmacleod 9y ago
That’s fine. I agree; “HTML-lite” is fine, and most of AMP is even an acceptable implementation of that concept. But in practice, the way AMP is used has fundamental problems. Like the fact that content is hosted by a third party, or that links are broken, or that scrolling is wrecked. I like the speed of AMP; the implementation is catastrophic and I wish dearly that I could disable its appearance in Google search results.
- akras14 9y ago
  +1 would love to see HTML light, and that's why I initially assumed AMP to be. Edit: Now that I think about it, Twitter does try to use AMP as HTML light, since they don't use the cache. Yet I think AMP is does not make a great HTML light, likely because it has to support the cache use case.
- hdhzy 9y ago
  > ... I wish dearly that I could disable its appearance in Google search results. You can if you use https://encrypted.google.com https://encrypted.google.com

fiddlerwoaroof 9y ago

Amp doesn't really break the web any more does the trend of writing sites that generate some HTML boilerplate and then load in all the real content through JavaScript: if anything, AMP is closer to the original model of the web as a collection of interlinked documents than any SPA is.

matthewmacleod 9y ago
That sort of thing is also incredibly shit though.