3 ms·

> A lot of web pages use background network requests for tracking user actions and sending data to remote servers, lazily loading heavy assets etc., and all tha

> A lot of web pages use background network requests for tracking user actions and sending data to remote servers, lazily loading heavy assets etc., and all that goes unnoticed by the user. And there is nothing wrong with it.

Cybiote 10y ago
It depends. There are situations when a user is heavily constrained by both data and charge (Amp hr) limits. In those situations, heavy background loading is a measurable source of headaches and annoyance.
bhauer 10y ago
There's also nothing wrong with wanting to know about it. So I applaud the creation of this extension. Though he does go on to say: > Ideally, the browsers "loading icon" should spin for those requests as well On that point, I don't agree, since it would give the misleading appearance—at least to me—that the page wasn't even done with its initial rendering. But perhaps he is suggesting the standard loading icon should switch to a sort of unobtrusive network in/out indicator after the initial rendering. That I would like.
- awalGarg 10y ago
  Author here. > perhaps he is suggesting the standard loading icon should switch to a sort of unobtrusive network in/out indicator after the initial rendering yes, that was what I implied, which is why I wrapped "\"loading icon\"" in quotes :) I agree though that the wording isn't very clear, my bad!
__a__ 10y ago
And there is nothing wrong with blocking these transfers either. It is the user's own computer and the user's own network subscription after all. User pays for these resources. As for the software, users get to choose the software. They might prefer software that does not use so much bandwidth. And there's nothing wrong with that.
userbinator 10y ago
That's the attitude which leads to users who don't know anything, can't easily learn, and can be easily controlled and manipulated. Of course, that might be your intention, in which case my only appropriate reaction is "DO NOT WANT!"

Cybiote 10y ago

It depends. There are situations when a user is heavily constrained by both data and charge (Amp hr) limits. In those situations, heavy background loading is a measurable source of headaches and annoyance.

bhauer 10y ago

There's also nothing wrong with wanting to know about it. So I applaud the creation of this extension. Though he does go on to say: > Ideally, the browsers "loading icon" should spin for those requests as well On that point, I don't agree, since it would give the misleading appearance—at least to me—that the page wasn't even done with its initial rendering. But perhaps he is suggesting the standard loading icon should switch to a sort of unobtrusive network in/out indicator after the initial rendering. That I would like.

awalGarg 10y ago
Author here. > perhaps he is suggesting the standard loading icon should switch to a sort of unobtrusive network in/out indicator after the initial rendering yes, that was what I implied, which is why I wrapped "\"loading icon\"" in quotes :) I agree though that the wording isn't very clear, my bad!

__a__ 10y ago

And there is nothing wrong with blocking these transfers either. It is the user's own computer and the user's own network subscription after all. User pays for these resources. As for the software, users get to choose the software. They might prefer software that does not use so much bandwidth. And there's nothing wrong with that.

userbinator 10y ago

That's the attitude which leads to users who don't know anything, can't easily learn, and can be easily controlled and manipulated. Of course, that might be your intention, in which case my only appropriate reaction is "DO NOT WANT!"