8 ms·

Shared below too. Just as a quick point and I will drop it in the article comments too. I'm the lead for our Chrome Developer Relations team. Chrome doesn't d

• lukepothier 9y ago
  That's interesting, and a relief.
  • kinlan 9y ago
    If you are interested, there is also a spec under development at the moment to make it more explicit - https://wicg.github.io/picture-in-picture/ https://wicg.github.io/picture-in-picture/
• kuschku 9y ago
  Then Chrome should have an option to stop the resize handler from firing when entering PiP mode. The user should always have the right to override what the website is doing.
  • kinlan 9y ago
    So you would like us to not tell the page what the render is doing? I'm not sure how that would play out for any number of API's that exist on the web. Developer's have consistently had the means to override the default actions of the browser (think drag and drop) but I don't think hiding side-effects or user actions helps anyone.
    • avaer 9y ago
      I'd like to be able to tell my browser what it should tell the pages it's loading, especially if pages are leveraging it to do things against my will. That applies to blocking Google ads, as well as fixing Youtube malfeatures. Of course, it's understandable you won't see this from a browser paid for by Google. But you can't paint in broad brush strokes like "I don't think hiding side-effects or user actions helps anyone."
      • kinlan 9y ago
        I'm disputing the fact there was a casual offhand design, and I don't think hiding the state of the render or the browser helps anyone not least developers who need the information about the state of their page. I'm not saying that there can't be meaningful response from the browser to user hostile actions, I don't think anyone disagrees. There's a broader question about a user's will and the sites intent especially when it comes to business plans of the site that I'm not sure if access to features native in the browser is aligned with say ad blocking or tracking etc... I don't know.
        • Aaargh20318 9y ago
          > There's a broader question about a user's will and the sites intent especially when it comes to business plans of the site The site's business plans are not my problem. Basically, my phone and my computer should do what I want. Why is there even an API to make a video player enter/exit full-screen mode ? That's 100% a user decision and there is no valid reason why that should ever be exposed to JS.
          • Touche 9y ago
            What if I want to present an X button that the user can click to exit fullscreen? How would I do that without a programmable API?
            • pas 9y ago
              That should be a browser option. (Show exit full-screen button or not.) Also, especially for video, the browser should be able to play it full screen without any distractions. Of course, there are optional enhancements (subtitles, or different audio tracks) driven via JS. And for those the controls have to go somewhere. Ideally, if there were a standard for those, the browser could handle it. (But then we're at the problem of an ever bloating browser.)
              • Touche 9y ago
    • kuschku 9y ago
      Actually, yes. I want that the user is able to force a page to do whatever the user wants, if they choose to do so. Just like my browser blocks popups, and my browser blocks those sites that try to prevent right-click, and my browser blocks those sites that spawn dialogs when you try to leave them, Just in the same way I want my browser to force websites to allow PiP.
      • annnnd 9y ago
        I agree with you, but that is probably something that belongs to a plugin.
        • kuschku 9y ago
          Which Chrome for Android does not support.
          • AndrewDucker 9y ago
            Then use Firefox for Android.
  • Mindwipe 9y ago
    That would be an excellent way to force Google to switch distribution of all content via YouTube to HTML5 EME with Widevine DRM, given it's pretty clear their music agreements prohibit permitting this.
    • izacus 9y ago
      Most of YouTube content isn't music though. Why are they so user hostile - e.g. why can't I listen to talks/podcasters in the background while browsing the internet?
      • arjie 9y ago
        If you're in the US, you can do that with Youtube Red.
        • avaer 9y ago
          Amusingly, this does answer the parent question.
        • izacus 9y ago
          But I'm not, so I'm not allowed to. I wouldn't have a problem with it if I could - paying for ad-free YouTube with added features seems like a fair deal to me.
          • noisem4ker 9y ago
            I wouldn't call "letting me turn off the screen or switch to another application while still consuming media" an "additional feature". Especially since they must go out of their way in the first place to detect when that is happening and to prevent me from doing so, as they do on their mobile website.
            • nol13 9y ago
              Curious to know if with youtube red, if i play in the background is it smart enough to switch to an audio only stream, or still full bandwidth?
  • fixermark 9y ago
    Is that something that can be done with a Chrome extension? If not, then since Chromium is open-source, I imagine you could hack it in to a personal copy.
    • kuschku 9y ago
      Chrome for Android does not support extensions.
• Mithaldu 9y ago
  This is unclear. Do you work for Youtube or Android? E: This is a simple and earnest question. Why the downvotes?