3 ms·

Amp gives you non logged in versions of websites. Anyone whos usually logged in somewhere is impacted negatively

by 8note 5y ago

mrtksn 5y ago
Fair. So far there are three issues pointed out here that I'm not happy with too. To re-cap: 1) Sharing AMP links is weird, feels wrong and Non-AMP links are hard to get 2) Breaks Safari's reader mode 3) Gives sub-par experience for websites that provide better experience when logged in since the AMP version is always the non-logged-in version. None of those are deal-breaker for me because AMP pages come as a search results and fast loading results are very valuable for me when skimming to find the right one. Once I find it, I can switch to the full version(but Google makes it harder and harder. maybe this should be 4.).
- ximeng 5y ago
  4) if you don’t want amp it’s an extra click (once you’ve found the non-amp link) and going back then requires two clicks
- tyingq 5y ago
  The worst of AMP prior to this story, for me, was the carousel behavior. When AMP rolled out, any story you clicked from the carousel: - Left and right swipe events were hijacked, and sent the user to somebody else's website with a related story! - The back button would go to Google, even if you had right or left swiped as described above...that is, non-google pages were not in the history. Then, not just carousel pages, these applied to all AMP pages: - A very tall banner at the top pushed your content down. It had an [x] button that would send you back to the google search rather than the expected behavior of removing the banner. - Finding the real url was 2 clicks deep And then just the overall weird smugness about calling it an open standard. Even though the "open standard" required including a google-owned javascript file via a <script> tag, and the validator would fail you if you didn't. You weren't allowed to host it yourself.

Amp gives you non logged in versions of websites. Anyone whos usually logged in somewhere is impacted negatively

by 8note 5y ago

Amp gives you non logged in versions of websites. Anyone whos usually logged in somewhere is impacted negatively

Fair. So far there are three issues pointed out here that I'm not happy with too. To re-cap: 1) Sharing AMP links is weird, feels wrong and Non-AMP links are hard to get 2) Breaks Safari's reader mode 3) Gives sub-par experience for websites that provide better experience when logged in since the AMP version is always the non-logged-in version. None of those are deal-breaker for me because AMP pages come as a search results and fast loading results are very valuable for me when skimming to find the right one. Once I find it, I can switch to the full version(but Google makes it harder and harder. maybe this should be 4.).

ximeng 5y ago
4) if you don’t want amp it’s an extra click (once you’ve found the non-amp link) and going back then requires two clicks
tyingq 5y ago
The worst of AMP prior to this story, for me, was the carousel behavior. When AMP rolled out, any story you clicked from the carousel: - Left and right swipe events were hijacked, and sent the user to somebody else's website with a related story! - The back button would go to Google, even if you had right or left swiped as described above...that is, non-google pages were not in the history. Then, not just carousel pages, these applied to all AMP pages: - A very tall banner at the top pushed your content down. It had an [x] button that would send you back to the google search rather than the expected behavior of removing the banner. - Finding the real url was 2 clicks deep And then just the overall weird smugness about calling it an open standard. Even though the "open standard" required including a google-owned javascript file via a <script> tag, and the validator would fail you if you didn't. You weren't allowed to host it yourself.