29 ms·

One detail which I feel must be mentioned: if you block `ampproject.org` by default -- directly or by blocking 3rd-party javascript by default, -- you will be "

One detail which I feel must be mentioned: if you block `ampproject.org` by default -- directly or by blocking 3rd-party javascript by default, -- you will be "punished" with a 8-second delay before the page becomes visible. This is an entirely artificial delay, implemented through an inlined style CSS animation in AMP-based pages: animation:-amp-start 8s steps(1,end) 0s 1 normal both} @keyframes -amp-start{from{visibility:hidden}to{visibility:visible}} I can't see any good reason for such delay. If you are not aware of this 8s delay, you might be misled into thinking the page is broken and that `ampproject.org` is really needed, while the page renders just fine without it, except for the delay. Example: https://ampbyexample.com/ https://ampbyexample.com/

emilfihlman 9y ago
Okay this is a pretty bad thing to do.
Ajedi32 9y ago
I'd assume that's probably done to prevent FOUC while it's waiting for the JS to load. What do you get if you override that style?
- gorhill 9y ago
  If using uBlock Origin, you can try the example page with that cosmetic filter: ampbyexample.com##body:style(animation: none !important;) One thing for sure, the result is much more pleasant than having to wait 8 seconds if one does not want to un-block 3rd-party javascript from `ampproject.org`.
  - lgats 9y ago
    I suppose webmasters could add the inline css body{animation:none !important;} On mobile so I haven't had the chance to test
    - gorhill 9y ago
      I should have included this in my first comment: this is a requirement from AMP to include the animation[1]: AMP HTML documents must contain the following boilerplate in their head tag. [...] <style amp-boilerplate>body{-webkit-animation: ... [1] https://www.ampproject.org/docs/fundamentals/spec/amp-boilerplate https://www.ampproject.org/docs/fundamentals/spec/amp-boiler...
apostacy 9y ago
This kind of dishonest design is all too common now. If you pull back the curtain, you can find all sorts of other ways that the user is gaslighted. One example is that the youtube mobile website will prevent you from playing a video in the background now. It didn't used to. This is to "encourage" you to use their Youtube RED app.

emilfihlman 9y ago

Okay this is a pretty bad thing to do.

Ajedi32 9y ago

I'd assume that's probably done to prevent FOUC while it's waiting for the JS to load. What do you get if you override that style?

gorhill 9y ago
If using uBlock Origin, you can try the example page with that cosmetic filter: ampbyexample.com##body:style(animation: none !important;) One thing for sure, the result is much more pleasant than having to wait 8 seconds if one does not want to un-block 3rd-party javascript from `ampproject.org`.
- lgats 9y ago
  I suppose webmasters could add the inline css body{animation:none !important;} On mobile so I haven't had the chance to test
  - gorhill 9y ago
    I should have included this in my first comment: this is a requirement from AMP to include the animation[1]: AMP HTML documents must contain the following boilerplate in their head tag. [...] <style amp-boilerplate>body{-webkit-animation: ... [1] https://www.ampproject.org/docs/fundamentals/spec/amp-boilerplate https://www.ampproject.org/docs/fundamentals/spec/amp-boiler...

apostacy 9y ago

This kind of dishonest design is all too common now. If you pull back the curtain, you can find all sorts of other ways that the user is gaslighted. One example is that the youtube mobile website will prevent you from playing a video in the background now. It didn't used to. This is to "encourage" you to use their Youtube RED app.