3 ms·

The intent of the feature seems to be to hide content until it has been laid out properly, which is generally a positive change to the experience because you ca

The intent of the feature seems to be to hide content until it has been laid out properly, which is generally a positive change to the experience because you can't read stuff while it is jumping around. In that sense, the website is "deliberately" stopping you from seeing static content in the same sense that browsers deliberately don't flash the raw HTML code onscreen before they have finished performing layout operations, but it seems unreasonable to imply it is malicious or defective behavior. The CSS animation is a fallback to that intended behavior.

dathinab 8y ago
I is actually both. If it would be just a fallback then the time it uses would be at most 5s, more realistic 3s. The think is, if you are on a internet connection where you have frequent loading time of 3s for the _basic_ content, then you are used to seeing partial loaded pages and you likely love it if the connection happen to load the content you care about first, potentially leaving the page before it's completely loaded when noticing that it's not what you are looking for. The choice of 8s looks _a lot_ like they where looking for the highest time they can chooses without making it look obvious deliberately but which is long enough to make many "causal" users stop using the script blocker. I.e. 10+s would look way to obvious as a intentionally long choice. 9s still looks big as we are used to see 9 as nearly 10 from product prices to some degree (e.g. 9.99€). So the highest number which doesn't look obviously high is the 8. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- SquareWheel 8y ago
  Eight seconds may seem exceptional on broadband internet, but it is not elsewhere in the world. I recently worked with a website in Brazil that could take over a minute to load over 3G. It only looks malicious because you're looking for it to be malicious.
  - grenadier21 8y ago
    Like parent said, if a page takes 8s to load, I sure as heck don't mind seeing some partial results so I can start reading in those 8s.
  - Aaargh20318 8y ago
    Great, then serve AMP pages to people in Brazil. I don’t see why I can’t permanently opt-out of AMP considering I’ll alway be browsing on either wifi connected to gbit fiber or a high speed 4G connection. Better yet, make AMP opt-in. It’s naive to think AMP has anything to do with improving the UX, it makes it worse in every way.
cjhanks 8y ago
With my crummy internet connection, it's not a better experience. I really only care about the text on most websites, but I end up waiting for a lot of assets before I can see that. I understand why google wants to avoid having the page redraw the layout as assets arrive, that can also be annoying if done with a lot of relative formatting. But for me, on average, the experience is worse than non-AMP sites.

dathinab 8y ago

I is actually both. If it would be just a fallback then the time it uses would be at most 5s, more realistic 3s. The think is, if you are on a internet connection where you have frequent loading time of 3s for the _basic_ content, then you are used to seeing partial loaded pages and you likely love it if the connection happen to load the content you care about first, potentially leaving the page before it's completely loaded when noticing that it's not what you are looking for. The choice of 8s looks _a lot_ like they where looking for the highest time they can chooses without making it look obvious deliberately but which is long enough to make many "causal" users stop using the script blocker. I.e. 10+s would look way to obvious as a intentionally long choice. 9s still looks big as we are used to see 9 as nearly 10 from product prices to some degree (e.g. 9.99€). So the highest number which doesn't look obviously high is the 8. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

SquareWheel 8y ago
Eight seconds may seem exceptional on broadband internet, but it is not elsewhere in the world. I recently worked with a website in Brazil that could take over a minute to load over 3G. It only looks malicious because you're looking for it to be malicious.
- grenadier21 8y ago
  Like parent said, if a page takes 8s to load, I sure as heck don't mind seeing some partial results so I can start reading in those 8s.
- Aaargh20318 8y ago
  Great, then serve AMP pages to people in Brazil. I don’t see why I can’t permanently opt-out of AMP considering I’ll alway be browsing on either wifi connected to gbit fiber or a high speed 4G connection. Better yet, make AMP opt-in. It’s naive to think AMP has anything to do with improving the UX, it makes it worse in every way.

cjhanks 8y ago

With my crummy internet connection, it's not a better experience. I really only care about the text on most websites, but I end up waiting for a lot of assets before I can see that. I understand why google wants to avoid having the page redraw the layout as assets arrive, that can also be annoying if done with a lot of relative formatting. But for me, on average, the experience is worse than non-AMP sites.