3 ms·

Should images also not display by default? What about short videos used as replacements for GIFS? Loading the gif would actually use more bandwidth. All these

Should images also not display by default? What about short videos used as replacements for GIFS? Loading the gif would actually use more bandwidth. All these restrictions on mobile browsers make web development a pain.

coldacid 8y ago
I remember that browsers used to actually have an option to not load images. Of course, that was back in the 90s when everyone still used dialup.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> All these restrictions on mobile browsers make web development a pain. Were web developers not causing so much pain for the users, we wouldn't have this topic in the first place.
nordsieck 8y ago
> What about short videos used as replacements for GIFS? Loading the gif would actually use more bandwidth. It seems reasonable to have an option to lazy load gifs and video. Same with audio. My browser does this right now with flash: if I want to play flash content, I have to opt in. I never want to opt in. > All these restrictions on mobile browsers make web development a pain. I don't understand why you seem to think the browser should serve websites' interests over users interests.
- atom_arranger 8y ago
  That's very accusatory. I'm just trying to make a nice experience for users. As I said the GIF version would use more bandwidth, so if browsers force me to use GIFs instead of an HTML5 videos it's making things worse for the user by that metric. If you want to browse an internet without images (or GIFS, or HTML5 gifs) I think you should be able to but I don't think that's what most people, including myself, want. Aside from that though video autoplaying is part of the spec. I think that browsers not following specs properly has made the web a much worse place overall. Browser incompatibility has significantly hindered the web as an application platform.

3 ms·

Should images also not display by default? What about short videos used as replacements for GIFS? Loading the gif would actually use more bandwidth. All these

by atom_arranger 8y ago

coldacid 8y ago
I remember that browsers used to actually have an option to not load images. Of course, that was back in the 90s when everyone still used dialup.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> All these restrictions on mobile browsers make web development a pain. Were web developers not causing so much pain for the users, we wouldn't have this topic in the first place.
nordsieck 8y ago
> What about short videos used as replacements for GIFS? Loading the gif would actually use more bandwidth. It seems reasonable to have an option to lazy load gifs and video. Same with audio. My browser does this right now with flash: if I want to play flash content, I have to opt in. I never want to opt in. > All these restrictions on mobile browsers make web development a pain. I don't understand why you seem to think the browser should serve websites' interests over users interests.
- atom_arranger 8y ago
  That's very accusatory. I'm just trying to make a nice experience for users. As I said the GIF version would use more bandwidth, so if browsers force me to use GIFs instead of an HTML5 videos it's making things worse for the user by that metric. If you want to browse an internet without images (or GIFS, or HTML5 gifs) I think you should be able to but I don't think that's what most people, including myself, want. Aside from that though video autoplaying is part of the spec. I think that browsers not following specs properly has made the web a much worse place overall. Browser incompatibility has significantly hindered the web as an application platform.