4 ms·

This CSS animation is just the backup in case the javascript doesn't load at all, really. After 8 seconds, the page gives up trying to prevent the flash of unst

This CSS animation is just the backup in case the javascript doesn't load at all, really. After 8 seconds, the page gives up trying to prevent the flash of unstyled content and just renders, regardless of how bad the styling is. It also includes a <noscript> block that renders the page immediately if javascript is disabled. The 8s thing is for network issues. Graceful degradation. Lots of documents (amp or not) use the same "hide the screen until layout is done" trick to avoid multiple relayouts as the initial javascript is running and CSS is being fetched. More often than ideal, they don't have a fallback if the javascript doesn't load at all. AMP mandates it with this CSS animation, which is far better than nothing. Also when served from the AMP Cache (https://www-ehow-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.ehow.co.uk/how_5840711_test-electrical-outlet-digital-multimeter.html https://www-ehow-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.ehow.co.uk... for the example shown), the layout algorithm that javascript runs is applied by the AMP Cache instead and the 8-second timeout code is removed completely (view source and take a look). This doesn't work on all pages - there are some features that require a client-side context, but it does work on this one. Websites can run the same server-side layout algorithm on their origin using a node library (https://www.npmjs.com/package/amp-toolbox-optimizer https://www.npmjs.com/package/amp-toolbox-optimizer). There is also work being done to improve all of this (server side layout on more documents, and making the system easier to run on your own site). The 3s observation from the original post is interesting. It may just have been an estimation of the 8s, or it could have something to do with how the document is configured. Looking at this document, there are some <amp-font> tags that the document author has added with a 3000ms timeout. These are tags that instruct the AMP javascript to change the document CSS class depending on the success of failure of loading of a particular font. By default (not amp specific), if a document loads a webfont for a particular text, the browser will not display the text until the font is loaded. <amp-font> provides a CSS hook by which the author can do stuff like "hide the text for up to 3s, or when the font has loaded, whichever comes first". This page has some <amp-font> tags with a 3s timeout referencing fonts that have not been added to the document, which seems like a mistake from the document author, unsure. I was not able to reproduce the 3s experience though, so this may be incorrect speculation as to what happened.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
> Lots of documents (amp or not) use the same ... trick Perhaps luck, but I have never encountered one that is so hostile about it with nearly 10s wait outside of AMP. I've rarely encountered a second or so's delay, but two or three sites including a large one that have the massively excessive AMP delay. So to call it the same trick seems like a stretch from a user annoyance point of view.
- y4mi 8y ago
  but why should they improve your experience, who has ad-block enabled and as such not creating any value to the website owner? It annoyed me as well before, though I realized as I stopped going there that this is for the best... for both my sanity and the websites bottom line.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Sometimes it's that simple, often it's not. There's still plenty of sites available without such hassles so it's not yet a problem finding alternatives. On the other hand an ad blocking user is not necessarily producing no value for the site. I've had subs to newspaper sites, all of which I viewed with blocking on, and Independent will never now be one of them. If Guardian did likewise, and added AMP, I'd cancel my current sub and look elsewhere, which would be a definite loss of value for them. I'm not so wedded to the views of any one outlet that I'd subscribe with this in place, or turn off blocking to subscribe, or feel I must subscribe to the same one indefinitely. If it's a site I wouldn't have considered a sub or donation to, you're right, nothing is lost.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    Accessibility.
    - y4mi 8y ago
      That claim is pretty shallow. The content is there, it's just hidden through css. If anything, a screen reader has access to the content earlier than the unimpaired people.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

> Lots of documents (amp or not) use the same ... trick Perhaps luck, but I have never encountered one that is so hostile about it with nearly 10s wait outside of AMP. I've rarely encountered a second or so's delay, but two or three sites including a large one that have the massively excessive AMP delay. So to call it the same trick seems like a stretch from a user annoyance point of view.

y4mi 8y ago
but why should they improve your experience, who has ad-block enabled and as such not creating any value to the website owner? It annoyed me as well before, though I realized as I stopped going there that this is for the best... for both my sanity and the websites bottom line.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Sometimes it's that simple, often it's not. There's still plenty of sites available without such hassles so it's not yet a problem finding alternatives. On the other hand an ad blocking user is not necessarily producing no value for the site. I've had subs to newspaper sites, all of which I viewed with blocking on, and Independent will never now be one of them. If Guardian did likewise, and added AMP, I'd cancel my current sub and look elsewhere, which would be a definite loss of value for them. I'm not so wedded to the views of any one outlet that I'd subscribe with this in place, or turn off blocking to subscribe, or feel I must subscribe to the same one indefinitely. If it's a site I wouldn't have considered a sub or donation to, you're right, nothing is lost.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Accessibility.
  - y4mi 8y ago
    That claim is pretty shallow. The content is there, it's just hidden through css. If anything, a screen reader has access to the content earlier than the unimpaired people.