Jump to content
felix

Googles "AMP-Project"

Recommended Posts

Google today announced it's competitor to Facebooks "Instant Articles": "AMP"(Accelerared Mobile Pages)HTML. Based on open source technologies (Basically it's a set of Web Components and a JS-Framework that loads and caches resources) it seems very promising. As far as I understand media is cached, served and proxied by google (and some tech partners). 

Btw: processwire as a system could benefit from/partner with it, too: https://www.ampproject.org/faq/#accelerated-mobile-pages-9

I'm really looking forward to playing around with it. Anyone else already fired up his editor and started fiddling around?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for posting, not seen this.

First look, it sounds interesting but not really sure what they're trying to solve with it... also the first quote is worrying as it is mianly focused on advertising :(

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think PW should offer a solution (module?) for AMP as the big WP already published a plugin. Google is pushing the AMP project as they pushed for https/spdy/. Now we got Let's encrypt (certificates for free). If we like it or not - Googles market share in search is (at least here in Germany) >90 % - so ignoring their moves is heroic but cuts you off the line.

As I understand we have to offer two versions of one page, a regular one and a AMP-Version. Depending on the the requesting hardware (phone/tablet/desktop) Google (or any other search machine?) offers the appropriate page in the SERP. This leads to two different templates for a page, two URLs and a crosswise linking of the pages.

So what would be needed in PW is the ability to assign a second (plus third,plus...) template to the content page, where each template is assigned a separate URL (or prefix/suffix) .

As I am not a coder I'd appreciate the help of the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds to me like a good cause but a bad way to "force" people to do it. You can already do this in PW templates, so knock yourself out. I just see this going the way of the Dodo (or google wave ;) so I wouldnt recommend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Werner

ProcessWire does not control the data structure as well as the output of your website. This is very different to a blogging website like Wordpress, where content is very much determined upfront. If you need AMP you'd need to implement it yourself.

But ProcessWire is fully equipped to do the thing the wp plugin does. Allow urlSegments for your templates and allow 'amp' as urlSegment. Then you can use this to output the amp code in your template:

if($input->urlSegment1) { // add "&& $input->urlSegment1 == 'amp'" if you've more urlSegments
  // Output AMP
} else {
  // You're previous template code
}

Your url www.example.com/some/site/ will be the normal page, www.example.com/some/site/amp/ will be the amp site. I'm just not sure how google is supposed to know about this amp website in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LostKobrakai: Danke!

Google can find the AMP page via a link you should place on every standard-page (directing to its AMP-sister). More info on this:

https://www.ampproject.org/docs/guides/discovery.html

The remark on the Wordpress plugin was more a 'political statement'. If it is very easy for the millions of Wordpress users to make use of AMP they will use it. As Google stated they will favour AMP sites in mobile SERPs from now on I think it is worth to keep an eye on what is going to happen in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LostKobrakai: Danke!

Google can find the AMP page via a link you should place on every standard-page (directing to its AMP-sister). 

That's very interesting. I've been following the AMP news closely and wondered if a blog post had to be either a "normal" html page OR an AMP page.

I assumed you shouldn't have both as Google doesn't like duplicate content but perhaps it's allowable for AMP pages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Peter:

duplicate content is not an issue as you also need to have a canonical link on the AMP page, directing to the 'full' page. So Google is fully aware of the two pages - they actually asked for a 'separate mobile content', didn't they?

Basically nothing really new. There were days when we had seperate mobile sites, and our server selcted what content to be sent out. Now again we have two different offerings/pages, and Google does the pick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why aren't they supporting development and browser support of normal html5 css3 things like <picture> and srcset?

Instead coming up with yet another html specification seems ... (crazy?)

But as benbyf stated it's again about money..  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess I need to dig more into it..but still feels like there's aaaalways something better.... :rolleyes:

Maybe you got time to share some of your enlightenments?  :-[

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMP forces you to make your mobile pages lightweight, but that's a choice you can make without using AMP.  It seems like the caching system is the only real advantage. Like most of you, I can't really see the point yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think mobile content should load fast and every useless piece should be disabled if possible.

 

But I don't really understand why we can't just do everything AMP style and forget the old ways? Browsers can support it and if I don't have any elements which are banned, then why should I do normal page? I want always optimise my content and websites, but I don't really like double content or double work.

 

I can confirm that LostKobrakai's way to do this seems to be best practise but I think fixing only the elements that needs to be fixed is a better way than put everything to AMP or normal. At least for me because I have a lot of templates and code.

 

I just do my first AMP version.

 

amp-iframe: Must be at least 600px or 75% of the first viewport away from the top.

This is not nice for me because I always put YouTube video to top of the page (embed video - title - info - body), because that is very important for me. So now it must be the last.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been a couple of these sorts of articles lately: https://80x24.net/post/the-problem-with-amp/

Quote

Google’s goals with the AMP Project are laudable, but there are major security and UX concerns that need to be addressed. In its current form, AMP is bad for the open web and should be changed or eliminated.

https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/11/removing-your-site-from-amp/
 

Quote

 

AMP is Google's attempt to re-fight the transcoding wars of the early 2000s.

It is actively dangerous to the web ecosystem, helps disseminate propaganda, and is disliked by many users.

If, like me, you made the mistake of trying out AMP on your website - you're in a tricky position if you try to remove it. Google doesn't like anything leaving its clutches.

After a few weeks of AMP, I decided that it wasn't suitable for me. So I uninstalled the WordPress plugin. That's when the problems started.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

is there any module or tutorial about amp pages for processwire?

I want to make an amp version  of my regular page.

My idea is create a new template file(amptemplate.php) coded with amp html 

i will create a folder named "Amp" on admin panel and connect that template for child pages

is it works?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't need another template..you can use urlSegments for this and then if /amp/ is appended to the url you output amp content..without the url segment you can then output normal html which is recommended (to have both)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI. Well worth the read:

https://www.i-programmer.info/news/81-web-general/12149-google-gives-amp-open-governance-still-not-good-enough.html

"It doesn't matter if Google hands AMP over to an entirely benevolent foundation, as long as Google is adjusting its search and hosting the cache, it has too much control. The web served by Google isn't an open and free web, it is a walled garden in waiting."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

The web served by Google isn't an open and free web, it is a walled garden in waiting."

Not trying to hijack this Google AMP thread but one should read this too about Google:
Trying to setup a censored search engine in china where search results on democracy and human rights are made invisible.
Internal memos about this subject by Google employees who try to make this public news are forced to delete these memos.
Source: the intercept

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on this: https://www.i-programmer.info/news/81-web-general/12700-google-attempts-to-fix-amp-makes-it-worse.html

Quote: "AMP is a walled garden under construction."

Sadly, macOS too:

https://www.i-programmer.info/news/201-ios/12681-is-the-walled-garden-about-to-close-around-macos.html

Quote:
"Beginning in macOS 10.14.5, all new or updated kernel extensions and all software from developers new to distributing with Developer ID must be notarized in order to run. In a future version of macOS, notarization will be required by default for all software. (A notarized app is a macOS app that was uploaded to Apple for processing before it was distributed.)"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Mithlesh
      Hi there, 

      How to add Google Recaptcha V 3.0 in the processwire?

      My website has this module: Markup Google reCAPTCHA but I am not sure whether that is V.3 or any other, sharing the SS below:


      Let me know how to update or integrate the same

      Thanks
    • By louisstephens
      So I have a project coming up soon and one of the goals was to use Google's AMP project for the project's mobile site. I have gone through the tutorials and think I have a good grasp on the matter, but there is still one roadblock I do not really know how to tackle. The site, which uses a responsive grid system, will look great on a mobile and desktop which was is fine by me. However, if a user comes from Google to one of our AMP pages (ie www.example.com/amp) and clicks on a url, they will then be loading our responsive mobile pages and not the amp pages. For the sake of consistency, we really want to "force" users to stay on all the amp pages.
       
      My current thoughts on how to set up this task:
      Allow url segments for all pages using "/amp" Using a simple if statement, load the amp page if it exists <?php if($input->urlSegment1) { // add "&& $input->urlSegment1 == 'amp'" if you've more urlSegments include("partials/amp-page.php"); } else { include("partials/normal.php"); } ?>  
      However, I have hit a roadblock on appending "/amp" to all pages if they came to an amp page via Google, or even if they are on mobile and visit the site. Is this even possible to do, or should we just use the amp pages (if a user comes from google) and allow them to be active on our mobile pages?  We are just trying to give the fastest load times possible, as well as give a consistent look between mobile and desktop versions. As always, I really appreciate the ideas and help.
    • By kongondo
      For a while now, I've wanted to expand my skills into mobile app development. Having done some Googling and watched several YouTube videos regarding native versus hybrid apps, I decided to go native. I did my homework regarding React, Ionic, etc and decided to go native. I settled on the NativeScript + TypeScript combo although it seems most tutorials are about Angular. Anyway, after watching quite a number of videos, just when I was about to dive into things, someone turned off the lights! Progressive what? PWA? Haven't you heard about this? No, I haven't! Where have you been? Let's not go there...
      OK, so I don't know much about mobile apps as you can tell (or even much about frontend development as my personal websites do tell, ). At first, I dismissed Progressive Web Apps as another Google tech that is bound to fail....until I read that Twitter, Blah Blah, have joined the bandwagon and the thing is gaining serious traction.
      It was back to more Googling. I now know (I think) what Progressive Web Apps are (or are meant to be). Naturally, my first question was Progressive Web Apps versus Native apps. So, I asked Google. Google told me to stop asking that question. To be precise, it told me (at least with the first couple of results) that that was the wrong question to ask! I tried finding out why, but the answer was hidden down some deep mobile rabbit hole that I didn't have time to fully descend into. 
      It seems I am back to where I started. Native apps seem to be promising first class citizenship (who doesn't want that?). On the other hand, I am being told, Progressive Web Apps are the bright shiny future that will solve all our problems (and maybe even shutdown the Play Store! ). Please be gentle with my ignorant self. I have asked Google but she hasn't bothered or cannot be bothered to reply or I am asking her the wrong questions. I simply want to know if Progressive Web Apps can or will one day be able to be used to:
      Build apps like WhatsApp, etc? Build games like Candy Crush (what?)? Build premium apps (how would that work?) Or...are Progressive Web Apps just a replacement for mobile.domain.com? Should I ditch my NativeScript??
      If someone could help me out here (once you're done laughing at my silly questions ) and/or point me to resources that will answer my questions, I'll be forever grateful .
      Thanks
       
    • By FrancisChung
      Hi, I have an ongoing issue with Google SEO that I can't seem to fix. Wondering if anyone has come across a similar situation?

      We deployed a new version of the website using a new deployment methodology and unfortunately, the wrong robots.txt file was deployed basically telling Googlebot not to scrape the site.

      The end result is that if our target keywords are used for a (Google) search, our website is displayed on the search page with "No information is available for this page." 

      Google provides a link to fix this situation on the search listing, but so far everything I have tried in it hasn't fixed the situation.
      I was wondering if anyone has gone through this scenario and what was the steps to remedy it?
      Or perhaps it has worked and I have misunderstood how it works?

      The steps I have tried in the Google Webmaster Tool :
      Gone through all crawl errors Restored the Robots.txt file and Verified with Robots.txt tester Fetch/Fetch and Render as Google as both Desktop/Mobile, using root URL and other URLs, using Indexing Requested / Indexing Requested for URL and Linked Pages. Uploaded a new Sitemap.xml  Particularly on the Sitemap page, it says 584 submitted, 94 indexed.
       
      Would the Search Engine return "No Information available" because the page is not indexed? The pages I'm searching for are our 2 most popular keywords and entry points into site. It's also one of 2 most popular category pages.  So I'm thinking it probably isn't the case but ...

      How can I prove / disprove the category pages are being indexed?

      The site in questions is Sprachspielspass.de. The keywords to search are fingerspiele and kindergedichte.

       
    • By Krlos
      Hi, I'm using Formbuilder to build forms in my  website, I have different forms to track Google Adwords Conversions but I have like 20 differents forms.
      I was wondering how do you guys handle conversions in Google Adwords
×
×
  • Create New...