Add support to AMP (Accelerated Mobile Pages) in IPB Forum

[Futtura]

When Invision will add support to +AMP pages in IPB? 

Google will update the SERP for mobile devices. You should add this featured as soon as possible.

See explanation at: https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/amp-your-content-a-preview-of-amped-results-in-google-search/ 

[Rikki]

It's difficult because as far as I know, AMP pages don't support forms - and almost every page of our suite has a form.

[Flitterkill]

Form support is WIP but man... AMP is really geared for static pages which IPS ain't. I can't even imagine the nightmare IPS would become reworking all the HTML to accomodate this.

[Prank]

AMP has become quite the initiative. 

https://www.ampproject.org/

I would love to see this adopted by IPS. 

[CheersnGears]

The problem for us is that the search engines will start favoring sites that have AMP. 

@Rikki I've noticed that other news sites now make you click a button to load the form. Something like "Click here to comment" or "Click here to load comments"

[James Ford]

AMP does support forms. See:

https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/extended/amp-form.html

It's Javascript that it doesn't support. So that would probably be a show stopper for IPS.

AMP is more intended for news sites though. Or sites with static content. Not web 2.0 sites like social networks or forums.

[CheersnGears]

I'd love for AMP to be available in Pages.

[Futtura]

On 8/13/2016 at 1:44 PM, Rikki said:

It's difficult because as far as I know, AMP pages don't support forms - and almost every page of our suite has a form.

AMP will be used for Discussion/Topics pages.

Should you use a button to link to a normal page? Like "Click here to comment" or "Click here to new topic". 

 

[The Jimmo]

40 minutes ago, Futtura said:

AMP will be used for Discussion/Topics pages.

Should you use a button to link to a normal page? Like "Click here to comment" or "Click here to new topic". 

 

AMP is great for articles and quick passer-by items, I can read what I want and then move on with my life more quickly. Providing a scenario for members to have to click and load another page just to reply sounds very counter-productive after the release of IPS4. I think it might be a great tool for Guests because they have to register or login anyway but adding that in for members seems like a hassle and a downgrade to many different things available to them.

[CheersnGears]

On 9/17/2016 at 4:53 PM, James Ford said:

AMP is more intended for news sites though. Or sites with static content. Not web 2.0 sites like social networks or forums.

News sites have comments sections.  I use Pages as a news site and would really like to see AMP in at least that app.

[Tom_K]

3 hours ago, CheersnGears said:

News sites have comments sections.  I use Pages as a news site and would really like to see AMP in at least that app.

Same here.

[Futtura]

On 9/17/2016 at 5:53 PM, James Ford said:

AMP is more intended for news sites though. Or sites with static content. Not web 2.0 sites like social networks or forums.

If you see the latests tips from Google, they recommends to convert any final page to AMP. 

In the beginning, only News pages was used to this. Today, all content pages is used to index as AMP.

[sobrenome]

+1

[espacemusculation]

On 26/10/2016 at 1:30 PM, Futtura said:

AMP will be used for Discussion/Topics pages.

Should you use a button to link to a normal page? Like "Click here to comment" or "Click here to new topic". 

 

good idea if form are not possible.

 

I hope IPB team think about it 

[nodle]

+1

[RRRRRrrrrr]

Maybe you can add support to AMP only for GUESTS.  This pages don't have forms

[Ohio Guns]

7 hours ago, RRRRRrrrrr said:

Maybe you can add support to AMP only for GUESTS.  This pages don't have forms

AMP officially supports forms now.  

[Flitterkill]

For those of you still pushing for AMP, consider the hell that would ensue when all the templates and 3rd-party apps/plugins would need to be extensively re-written to accomodate these changes. AMP requires a single css style sheet. IPS uses a multitude plus apps/plugins/themes have thier own.  All elements must have specified sizes. All of them. And on and on it goes. AMP - with form support even - is still targeted at "static" pages.

If AMP was around when IPS 4 was being conceived and engineered then yeah, maybe. But now?

It isn't going to happen with IPS 4x.

[sobrenome]

21 hours ago, Flitterkill said:

For those of you still pushing for AMP, consider the hell that would ensue when all the templates and 3rd-party apps/plugins would need to be extensively re-written to accomodate these changes. AMP requires a single css style sheet. IPS uses a multitude plus apps/plugins/themes have thier own.  All elements must have specified sizes. All of them. And on and on it goes. AMP - with form support even - is still targeted at "static" pages.

If AMP was around when IPS 4 was being conceived and engineered then yeah, maybe. But now?

It isn't going to happen with IPS 4x.

Why not? Huge work is not the same as impossible work. Internet is just about it, constant change....

[sobrenome]

21 hours ago, Flitterkill said:

For those of you still pushing for AMP, consider the hell that would ensue when all the templates and 3rd-party apps/plugins would need to be extensively re-written to accomodate these changes. AMP requires a single css style sheet. IPS uses a multitude plus apps/plugins/themes have thier own.  All elements must have specified sizes. All of them. And on and on it goes. AMP - with form support even - is still targeted at "static" pages.

If AMP was around when IPS 4 was being conceived and engineered then yeah, maybe. But now?

It isn't going to happen with IPS 4x.

Why not? Huge work is not the same as impossible work. Internet is just about it, constant change....

[Simon Woods]

20 minutes ago, sobrenome said:

Why not? Huge work is not the same as impossible work. Internet is just about it, constant change....

And what about those of us who are not trying to desperately run by Google's rules? We, as clients of the developers, have our priorities given less care because the developers have to engage in this huge work because... Google.

This is a terrible idea. Just because some of you are bending over for Google doesn't mean other people have to suffer. This already happens enough across the internet, with destructive advertising and disgusting tracking, all so that some people are making a living off the back of Google.

No, I disagree entirely with this idea.

[PedroNL]

+1

[opentype]

No need for a big debate in my opinion. IPS can just put it on the list of things to reconsider for another major release in the future. It is just nothing that needs to be included “as soon as possible”. There are so many things one can do to make a site load faster. And there are so many things one can do to improve the search ranking. Your site doesn’t stand or fall because you have or haven’t included that new thing Google just announced. 

[Simon Woods]

24 minutes ago, opentype said:

No need for a big debate in my opinion. IPS can just put it on the list of things to reconsider for another major release in the future. It is just nothing that needs to be included “as soon as possible”. There are so many things one can do to make a site load faster. And there are so many things one can do to improve the search ranking. Your site doesn’t stand or fall because you have or haven’t included that new thing Google just announced. 

Agreed.

If IPS can make this possible without "Huge work" being expected of third-party developers then sure, it should be considered at some point in the future.

[Ohio Guns]

On 11/16/2016 at 11:23 AM, Flitterkill said:

For those of you still pushing for AMP, consider the hell that would ensue when all the templates and 3rd-party apps/plugins would need to be extensively re-written to accomodate these changes. AMP requires a single css style sheet. IPS uses a multitude plus apps/plugins/themes have thier own.  All elements must have specified sizes. All of them. And on and on it goes. AMP - with form support even - is still targeted at "static" pages.

If AMP was around when IPS 4 was being conceived and engineered then yeah, maybe. But now?

It isn't going to happen with IPS 4x.

 

Any AMP'd page would likely be a stripped down version of what you currently see. So it would remove the extra CSS and probably disable 99% of plugins and mods. Having AMP'd pages, and forum threads would be awesome and benefit communities greatly. All the CSS can be inline, and can honestly probably be generated with about 30-40 different lines of raw css code.

Remember the "archives" function that many forum software used to have (vB3 had a great one). Just stripped down static versions of their community pages. AMP'd pages aren't very different than that. They don't need the ability to be interactive, they don't need to display 100's of images, just a fast served page that gets information to the user faster

Converting those visitors who come from AMP'd pages would be up to the webmaster, but ultimately the huge increase in traffic people would see with their communities would be beneficial for everyone.

16 hours ago, Simon Woods said:

And what about those of us who are not trying to desperately run by Google's rules? We, as clients of the developers, have our priorities given less care because the developers have to engage in this huge work because... Google.

This is a terrible idea. Just because some of you are bending over for Google doesn't mean other people have to suffer. This already happens enough across the internet, with destructive advertising and disgusting tracking, all so that some people are making a living off the back of Google.

No, I disagree entirely with this idea.

 

Then the idea probably isn't for you. But do you block all traffic to your site from search engines? AMP'd pages do more than just help search results. They're quickly becoming a standard that many mobile users are finding enjoyable, fast, and easy. The pages are infinitely faster for mobile users, which make up more people browsing the internet than desktops/laptops now. Like it or not, there is a reason its been widely adopted by major technology players in the field. It's infinitely better than the current solution of 100 kb+ page loads.

It's really not a terrible idea. I actually enjoy the traffic that Google drives to our site, and it's what keeps it going for some of us. I don't have a huge advertising budget for my site, its not well established and it isn't old. But it does rank well in the search engines for keywords people search for. It is where i get 70% of my sites new traffic, it's really the most cost effective advertising IMO. Any time new technology can enhance that, it should at least be looked and given a long consideration.