A letter about Google AMP

Re:A letter about Google AMP by bradgessler on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @12:59AM (#16112853)

I’d argue that pages that are static with few images should be given preference. Simple CSS rules, no JavaScript (or very little of it), not a ton of images, etc. People from all walks of life are capable of publishing this content and it’s equally as accessible.

Pages that should be heavily penalized are those with lots of extraneous JS, bloated CSS files, lots of auto play videos, and huge image files that are supposedly created by “experts” that need a DevOps team to deploy and distribute all the bloat.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A letter about Google AMP by pmlnr on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @03:22AM (#16113323)

What if it's a photographers portfolio? An art collection site?

Sometimes images make sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A letter about Google AMP by rurban on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @08:29AM (#16114741)

But nobody waits longer than 8 seconds. That's the golden webdev rule for ages. Anything above deserved to be punished.

Art collections are easy to develop with icons and progressive images.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A letter about Google AMP by pmlnr on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @06:17PM (#16120056)

Unless you go there for the artist and you know what you're after.

Progressive images... eh. The js you load for it is 3-4x the images at 720p. Progressive jpeg, that's better.

[ Parent | on HN ]