3 ms·

> How does anyone think this is a good idea? A while back on one of the AMP discussions here, someone from Google weighed in. They said the data was clear: use

> How does anyone think this is a good idea? A while back on one of the AMP discussions here, someone from Google weighed in. They said the data was clear: users not only accept it, they love AMP. I asked how they knew that, because if it was, say, just tracking how many people tried the 2-3 tap process to get to the original URL compared to how many people just engaged whatever you showed them, then the data might be showing you something else (and in fact, I wasn't clear how you'd get from accept to love in any other way than a focus group or survey). No response. Not clear if that's because revealing data would run afoul of internal confidential disclosure, or because this basically hadn't been thought through. > Apple for refusing to change the URL bar like Google does on Android. Apple has its own problems with the URL bar -- they keep the domain but drop the rest of the URL. Not as bad as replacing the domain, but not great.

PunksATawnyFill 6y ago
Companies with shitty UI often make unfounded claims that "users prefer it." Adobe is another prime offender here. If anyone's word should NOT be taken as gospel for UI or branding, it's Google's.
- snazz 6y ago
  Adobe users do prefer the UI to GIMP, for example.
- 72deluxe 6y ago
  Reminds me of the Office 2013 ribbon bar - users preferred it apparently! They couldn't find any of the options they'd used for 20+ years but somehow preferred it! Thank goodness menus for Office still existed on the Mac.
spideymans 6y ago
> Apple has its own problems with the URL bar -- they keep the domain but drop the rest of the URL. Not as bad as replacing the domain, but not great. You can view the full URL in safari for iOS by tapping the URL bar. In Safari for Mac, you can modify your preferences to always show the full URL. Definitely not ideal, but also not anticompetitive in the same vein as AMP
Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
> users not only accept it, they love AMP. As a user, I will absolutely say I love AMP. AMP pages load incredibly fast with much less bullshit. The real problem is that AMP isn't necessary. Google created AMP and is encouraging (nearly forcing it) it in a very hamfisted way because web developers couldn't figure out how to make responsive, fast-loading web pages without a huge company like Google spelling it out for them with a framework. Now, obviously to power users like the typical HN user, AMP is evil because it's just Google taking over more of the web. But understand that to your typical mobile user, AMP is a godsend because of how fast it is. They don't care that the URL shows Google instead of whatever page they think they're on.
- jeremydw 6y ago
  Often, it's not the developers that are at fault. Middle managers, cross-functional people, etc. ask developers to cram garbage into otherwise would-be lean pages. Developers often have no authority to push back, and stakeholders often don't fully understand "why" the garbage they're asking developers to insert into pages is detrimental to the user experience. With AMP, the little badge (the verification), serves as a constraint for developers, but mostly for business stakeholders. The conversation of "I can't do that, because it's simply not compatible with AMP" is way easier than "I can't do that, because it will make the page slow".
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    Makes sense. Middle managers love their analytics and dashboards.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  I am also a user who loves AMP, the same way I loved RSS. The reason I love AMP is one of the same reasons I loved RSS. RSS aggregators allowed instant loading of content across multiple sites. AMP enables the same thing but with a richer experience. It doesn't simply spell out how to make web pages fast. It makes them instant, which is impossible without something like AMP or RSS that allows safe prerendering with publisher opt in.

PunksATawnyFill 6y ago

Companies with shitty UI often make unfounded claims that "users prefer it." Adobe is another prime offender here. If anyone's word should NOT be taken as gospel for UI or branding, it's Google's.

snazz 6y ago
Adobe users do prefer the UI to GIMP, for example.
72deluxe 6y ago
Reminds me of the Office 2013 ribbon bar - users preferred it apparently! They couldn't find any of the options they'd used for 20+ years but somehow preferred it! Thank goodness menus for Office still existed on the Mac.

spideymans 6y ago

> Apple has its own problems with the URL bar -- they keep the domain but drop the rest of the URL. Not as bad as replacing the domain, but not great. You can view the full URL in safari for iOS by tapping the URL bar. In Safari for Mac, you can modify your preferences to always show the full URL. Definitely not ideal, but also not anticompetitive in the same vein as AMP

Sohcahtoa82 6y ago

> users not only accept it, they love AMP. As a user, I will absolutely say I love AMP. AMP pages load incredibly fast with much less bullshit. The real problem is that AMP isn't necessary. Google created AMP and is encouraging (nearly forcing it) it in a very hamfisted way because web developers couldn't figure out how to make responsive, fast-loading web pages without a huge company like Google spelling it out for them with a framework. Now, obviously to power users like the typical HN user, AMP is evil because it's just Google taking over more of the web. But understand that to your typical mobile user, AMP is a godsend because of how fast it is. They don't care that the URL shows Google instead of whatever page they think they're on.

jeremydw 6y ago
Often, it's not the developers that are at fault. Middle managers, cross-functional people, etc. ask developers to cram garbage into otherwise would-be lean pages. Developers often have no authority to push back, and stakeholders often don't fully understand "why" the garbage they're asking developers to insert into pages is detrimental to the user experience. With AMP, the little badge (the verification), serves as a constraint for developers, but mostly for business stakeholders. The conversation of "I can't do that, because it's simply not compatible with AMP" is way easier than "I can't do that, because it will make the page slow".
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  Makes sense. Middle managers love their analytics and dashboards.
lern_too_spel 6y ago
I am also a user who loves AMP, the same way I loved RSS. The reason I love AMP is one of the same reasons I loved RSS. RSS aggregators allowed instant loading of content across multiple sites. AMP enables the same thing but with a richer experience. It doesn't simply spell out how to make web pages fast. It makes them instant, which is impossible without something like AMP or RSS that allows safe prerendering with publisher opt in.