PlogLod@lemmy.world to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world · 1 year agoI get that AMP sites are supposed to load faster. But why do they have to be so ugly?message-squaremessage-square24fedilinkarrow-up143arrow-down16file-text
arrow-up137arrow-down1message-squareI get that AMP sites are supposed to load faster. But why do they have to be so ugly?PlogLod@lemmy.world to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world · 1 year agomessage-square24fedilinkfile-text
Or why do they need to change the appearance from the original version of the page at all? It just looks unaesthetic
minus-squarejmcs@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up43arrow-down1·1 year agoThe original is often just as bad. But you know what would load even faster and look decent across most form factors? Plain semantically correct HTML with minimal CSS and no JavaScript. For some reason that solution doesn’t seem to occur to Google’s engineers /s
minus-squarejmcs@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 year agoI was looking for that site when I was writing my comment and I couldn’t find it. Thanks for posting it.
minus-squarekadu@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up9·1 year agoIf we do NOT have a 46 component loading animation that loads TWO trackers and requires 20% GPU utilization I AM GOING TO PUKE, TEAM
The original is often just as bad.
But you know what would load even faster and look decent across most form factors? Plain semantically correct HTML with minimal CSS and no JavaScript. For some reason that solution doesn’t seem to occur to Google’s engineers /s
https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
I was looking for that site when I was writing my comment and I couldn’t find it. Thanks for posting it.
No JavaScript? How dare you? 😱
If we do NOT have a 46 component loading animation that loads TWO trackers and requires 20% GPU utilization I AM GOING TO PUKE, TEAM