3 ms·
> You need heuristics of some kind to get good performance, and I can't blame Microsoft for using the DOM for that. which, again, that's fine, but mayyyyybe th
by magicalist 8y ago
> You need heuristics of some kind to get good performance, and I can't blame Microsoft for using the DOM for that.
which, again, that's fine, but mayyyyybe they were a little lax in checking performance on nearly any other popular video site on the web to see if that heuristic is a good one?
Or maybe changing page layout in an extremely common way wasn't an effort to undermine a hyper specific benchmark?
- pcwalton 8y agoHow many sites put invisible DOM elements over the videos? Remember, if you put visible DOM elements on top of the videos, then you lose scanout compositing no matter what.
- magicalist 8y ago> How many sites put invisible DOM elements over the videos? A lot of them? Vimeo, for instance, has a number of opacity: 0 and hidden divs over the video. Twitch has at least a couple of opacity: 0 divs on top. Maybe we're interpreting the phrase > hidden empty div over YouTube videos differently? That's the structure I assume they were talking about.
- seba_dos1 8y agoI'd assume that it was actually an invisible, but not technically hidden div, leading to a fully transparent blending pass - divs with opacity:0 or display:none are trivial to optimize for this case.
- magicalist 8y ago> I'd assume that it was actually an invisible, but not technically hidden div Considering that it's now optimized and that's not what the original post said, I don't know why you'd assume that.
- catwell 8y agoThere are visible elements on top of YouTube videos. That's what this "empty div" is for if that's the one I think it is. It is the container for things like branding and annotations.