3 ms·
Is that sarcastic? If you're browsing without JS, or even without first-party JS, the images are basically worthless. I'd much rather they used CSS to accomplis
by x1798DE 10y ago
Is that sarcastic? If you're browsing without JS, or even without first-party JS, the images are basically worthless. I'd much rather they used CSS to accomplish whatever they were going for there.
- beagle3 10y agoNo, actually, I was not sarcastic. I was browsing this on mobile with almost zero bandwidth, and I got the text quickly and a crude image -- but clear enough to know I don't actually care about it. For many sites, the entire site is often delayed because of pictures, or gets several layout events as the pictures trickle through (or, they never do, and it's not always clear if there should or shouldn't be an image). What's your preference for a placeholder? Nothing? Broken image? That's fine, but I prefer Bloomberg's low quality version.
- x1798DE 10y agoMy preference would be something CSS or HTML based where if JS is off it still displays an image. I am not a super web developer or anything, but how about a fixed-size <div> block with the background set to the low-resolution version that contains the high-resolution version? Or just both images, stacked on top of one another with the high-resolution version positioned higher in the z-stack? Looks like they didn't even add a <noscript> tag (though generally I think uMatrix doesn't play nicely with noscript because scripting is selectively disabled, not entirely disabled), which would be at least a token effort towards alleviating the problem.
- nikatwork 10y agoI still don't understand why <img lowsrc=""> never took off.
- throwbsidbdk 10y agoWhatever happened to progressive jpg? You can get graceful degradation for free by just encoding your images that way
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]