4 ms·
the alternatives (gifs, frames advanced by JS) are even more bandwidth-heavy
by woogley 8y ago
the alternatives (gifs, frames advanced by JS) are even more bandwidth-heavy
- Marsymars 8y agoIf sites escalate to gifs or frames advanced by JS, I'll escalate to blocking gifs or JS. Autoplaying video is not acceptable.
- maxaf 8y agoI like what Slack does for GIFs: there's some (not sure if configurable) size threshold above which the GIF won't auto-expand. This is something browsers could do in general.
- cesarb 8y agoThat assumes the browser can know the image's content-length before loading the whole image, which unfortunately isn't always possible.
- maxaf 8y agoYeah, that's fair, but is likely a corner case. How often do you see a finitely sized resource that doesn't get returned with a Content-Length response header? If push came to shove, a browser could simply stop reading & close the connection after consuming a certain number of bytes. GIFs are sequential things anyway, aren't they? I don't remember that detail.