3 ms·
My experience with AMP, immediately before seeing this article: 1. On desktop, I clicked through a link on Facebook, leading to an AMP page 2. The page was cl
by jimrandomh 7y ago
My experience with AMP, immediately before seeing this article:
1. On desktop, I clicked through a link on Facebook, leading to an AMP page
2. The page was clearly meant for mobile, and looked bad on desktop; the images were full-screen size, the font was too big, and the text line length went all the way to the edges of my very wide browser window.
3. I used Ctrl+Minus to adjust the zoom, which fixed the font size but not the images or the line length.
4. I looked at the top and bottom of the page for a "desktop site" link, and couldn't find one.
5. I looked at the address bar, and saw that the URL was an AMP URL. This is the first time I have noticed that I am using AMP in more than a month.
6. I closed the tab and went to HN, where this was the top article.
When AMP works well, it's inconspicuous, so it's not so surprising that most of my remembered experiences with it are negative. Still, I think google needs to invest a bit more in preventing this sort of bad experience, because currently it comes across as "google breaking the web".
- gregable 7y agoEvery valid AMP page includes a <link rel=canonical href="..."> to the canonical URL for the document. If the aggregator (facebook in this case) parsed and linked to the canonical as the publisher recommends via this annotation, you would get the version the publisher preferred. This is how browser extensions that rewrite to the non-amp version work, they extract this URL. The AMP viewer iframe share button (and share intents) all share this canonical URL, not the AMP url. Google's implementation is trying it's best to get you to that version as well when sharing links. Link Rel Canonical is an old (2012) standard: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6596 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6596
- dmitriid 7y agoHello, gregablr, who works for AMP and forgets to disclose it. No, it's not Facebook's, or the browser's, or the user's fault. It's strictly and only Google's fault. You (as in "You, Google" and "You, personally, as a member of the AMP team") broke the most basic functionality of the web and go out of your way to justify this behavior.