3 ms·

Why? The AMP site for this specific article is significantly cleaner and easier to read. Edit: whoops apparently I'm not allowed to question this.

zeusk 9y ago
On Desktop, it is horrible. There are no margins, and zoom is messed up on Chrome/Firefox.
- lightbyte 9y ago
  Desktop is what I was referring to, its significantly better in my opinion. Just straight text full width, no wasted space and junk all over the screen.
  - zeusk 9y ago
    Surely you don't use a default non-100% zoom, it is crazy how Google who also happens to make a browser can't get such trivial details right. Also, the zero margins are not helpful on a large display. These alone make the experience grotesque and awful for me; DOM-distiller is so much better than AMP in terms of readability and layout.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    You can get the same experience by just requesting the AMP version from Wired directly (just append `/amp` to the original URL), no reason to go through Google's cache for that.
  - ztjio 9y ago
    I sincerely hope you have no authority over design of any software or web page that any human actually has to read. There is extensive research proving that text wider than about 60-70 characters is increasingly difficult to follow and understand. There is further research showing the benefit of margins for visual understanding as well. Basically what you get with this AMP link goes against all known facts about how the human eyes & brain best receives textual information, unless you just happen to have a huge zoom or tiny screen.
    - d4l3k 9y ago
      It's obnoxious that Wired styled their AMP page like that, but it's not a problem with AMP itself.
_joel 9y ago
Not everyone uses mobile, desktop experience is awful. Also I'd prefer to see the original content rather than a mangled Google version, there are significant issues with AMP (both technically and morally) and it would help if we don't propagate it's usage where possible. Thanks
- lightbyte 9y ago
  I was referring to desktop experience, it's significantly better from what I see.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    Are you serious? The page stretches across my widescreen monitor. I can't even see the whole image because of that. Reading such long lines is a hellish chore. Why do you think this is better than a properly formatted page?
    - benrbray 9y ago
      snap your browser to the side of your screen, and voila! it's half the length of your screen now
      - dingo_bat 9y ago
        Again, how is this better than a page that is already properly formatted?
Shorel 9y ago
It looks awful on the computer, but it is also perfect to save to pocket and read in my Kobo, which is what I usually do.
gowld 9y ago
You can still get the broken AMP formatting on the publisher's site: https://www.wired.com/story/googles-ai-wizard-unveils-a-new-twist-on-neural-networks/amp https://www.wired.com/story/googles-ai-wizard-unveils-a-new-...

zeusk 9y ago

On Desktop, it is horrible. There are no margins, and zoom is messed up on Chrome/Firefox.

lightbyte 9y ago
Desktop is what I was referring to, its significantly better in my opinion. Just straight text full width, no wasted space and junk all over the screen.
- zeusk 9y ago
  Surely you don't use a default non-100% zoom, it is crazy how Google who also happens to make a browser can't get such trivial details right. Also, the zero margins are not helpful on a large display. These alone make the experience grotesque and awful for me; DOM-distiller is so much better than AMP in terms of readability and layout.
- yorwba 9y ago
  You can get the same experience by just requesting the AMP version from Wired directly (just append `/amp` to the original URL), no reason to go through Google's cache for that.
- ztjio 9y ago
  I sincerely hope you have no authority over design of any software or web page that any human actually has to read. There is extensive research proving that text wider than about 60-70 characters is increasingly difficult to follow and understand. There is further research showing the benefit of margins for visual understanding as well. Basically what you get with this AMP link goes against all known facts about how the human eyes & brain best receives textual information, unless you just happen to have a huge zoom or tiny screen.
  - d4l3k 9y ago
    It's obnoxious that Wired styled their AMP page like that, but it's not a problem with AMP itself.

_joel 9y ago

Not everyone uses mobile, desktop experience is awful. Also I'd prefer to see the original content rather than a mangled Google version, there are significant issues with AMP (both technically and morally) and it would help if we don't propagate it's usage where possible. Thanks

lightbyte 9y ago
I was referring to desktop experience, it's significantly better from what I see.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  Are you serious? The page stretches across my widescreen monitor. I can't even see the whole image because of that. Reading such long lines is a hellish chore. Why do you think this is better than a properly formatted page?
  - benrbray 9y ago
    snap your browser to the side of your screen, and voila! it's half the length of your screen now
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      Again, how is this better than a page that is already properly formatted?

Shorel 9y ago

It looks awful on the computer, but it is also perfect to save to pocket and read in my Kobo, which is what I usually do.

gowld 9y ago

You can still get the broken AMP formatting on the publisher's site: https://www.wired.com/story/googles-ai-wizard-unveils-a-new-twist-on-neural-networks/amp https://www.wired.com/story/googles-ai-wizard-unveils-a-new-...