There’s a simple thing Google could do to convince me that their intentions with AMP are honorable: make it possible to turn it off.
EDIT, to be clear: for Google search results.
back
4 comments
AMP for email in GMail can be turned off and is off-by-default if image-loading is turned off.
This is good to hear! (Upvote for you!)
Where will we see the setting, and is it still rolling out? I can see in my old Gmail account where I have "Ask before displaying external images" selected, so I'm presumably protected from AMP for now, but I would've expected to see the setting for AMP alongside it.
The setting is called "Dynamic Email" and will be rolled out over the next few weeks to all users.
This doesn't seem to be true. I just checked my settings as well as the domain settings and I can't find any setting to disable AMP.
Please disclose that you work on AMP at Google.
Why is this polite request for transparency being downvoted?
Because the statement was one of fact, not opinion and therefore no correlation to ones' employer or experience as such.
If the statement was, "I think AMP for Email is perfectly fine as is and doesn't need an option to disable." that might be something to call for disclosure.
If you worked on the project, and you’re in the thread actively commenting on it, you should disclose your conflict of interest.
To their credit, the Google Cloud product team does this religiously.
Does the person in question work on AMP for gmail? Also, I'm still uncertain that statements of fact (not opinion) necessitate disclosure in this case.
cramforce's position is quite Google-able (or DuckDuckGo-able). There are at least three other Googlers who work on AMP in this thread, and one other Googler who might or might not have AMP involvement (a DevRel). Only one discloses on their profile that fact, and none of them disclosed on their actual comments. They're not really hiding, mind you, and if you read a lot of corporatespeak, they stand out pretty well.
(toomuchtodo is indeed accurate that the Google Cloud team are top notch on disclosures.)
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something but how can a standard be turned on and off? Can't you just not implement it? Or do you mean Google Search shouldn't show AMP pages?
When I swipe right on my Pixel 2 to get to the Google Now news feed, any article I click on opens the AMP version.
It's great when I'm on the light rail going through areas with patchy cell signal, but when an article's share buttons are broken because it's the AMP version it's a pain to figure out how to navigate to the non-AMP version of the article.
A couple news sources (usually technical ones) thankfully put a link to the non-AMP version somewhere on the page, but IMHO this should be automatically done for every AMP link opened.
> A couple news sources (usually technical ones) thankfully put a link to the non-AMP version somewhere on the page, but IMHO this should be automatically done for every AMP link opened.
That is available in the standard markup, so it should maybe just be added to the UI (in the ellipsis menu probably).
AMP is not a standard. It's a proprietary thing.
An industry standard can be started by one company and doesn't even need to be open source. All that's required as that some people or companies agree to do it the same way.
That's not a standard, it's a common practice. It only becomes a standard when it gets documented and everyone interested in implementing it agrees to follow the document.
Unfortunately, the documentation doesn't need to be open source, and often isn't. (For example, in the building industry.)
Same with HIPPA. If a standard is required by law, access shouldn't be gated and the document should have the same copyright status as law.
AMP is not an industry standard either. At best it is a spec, and a seriously broken one at that.
I assume he means turning off AMP-related features in Google products. Like disabling Google search from opening AMP pages instead of actual sites.
Yes, I want to turn it off as a user of Google search.
> make it possible to turn it off.
That's not actually sufficient. It needs to be opt-in, so I can search without signing in.
Trying to understand what happened to this thread. It was detached from its original location and hidden under a “more” link? Never seen that before, would @dang care to explain?
Comments are paginated, so when a threshold is reached (200 comments maybe ?), only the most popular threads are kept at the top, and the rest has to be loaded manually.
You can see the same mechanism here : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19490573