7 ms·

But that's why it's so important that it be part of the HTML spec. Previously, it would have to be implemented in Javascript. Now, you could configure your User

But that's why it's so important that it be part of the HTML spec. Previously, it would have to be implemented in Javascript. Now, you could configure your User Agent to ignore the attribute and eager load. That way you get the behaviour of always-load and the rest of us get fast loading pages. This is a Pareto move.

taeric 7y ago
Do we really expect people will be configuring their User Agent to ignore this attribute? Seems, wishful thinking.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  If they're annoyed they'll go on the Internet and find out how to do it. Defaults should be useful to the many, and the few can reconfigure their UA. Think about all the use-cases you could build. Maybe you could later set "I'm on a metered connection" at the OS level, have your browser pick that up, and not overuse your metered connection, etc. etc. Maybe you could have that in a browser extension that you manually toggle. No, this is far too useful.
  - taeric 7y ago
    I'm still skeptical. Is there any precedent for similar features that are used today? Closest I can think of is turning off JavaScript. Which this seems made to combat, honestly. And, honestly, I doubt that has penetration worth talking about. And again, just don't put so many giant graphics on a page. Problem mostly solved. With less tech and likely faster results.
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      Please read the spec. Your accusation of this being intended to defeat turning off JS is dealt with here[0]. It's only a +188 -66 patch and eminently readable. If you are discussing this without reading it, this is going to be an unproductive discussion. 0: https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3752/files#diff-36cd38f49b9afa08222c0dc9ebfe35ebR28107 https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3752/files#diff-36cd38f4...
      - taeric 7y ago
        The size is a non sequitor. This is something that otherwise requires javascript. Full stop. No? Now, I don't actually think this is being done to sidestep people that turn off javascript. Mainly because I just don't think that is a market worth worrying about. But I can't see why this is a feature that we need. Progressive loading, I could almost see. But by and large, high resolution images are just not compatible with high speed page loads. I'm not seeing how this feature actually changes that.
        scarejunba 7y ago
        The link is to the part of the diff that enforces that it behaves identically to current unannotated tags when Javascript is disabled. Obviously if it's designed to be no different from the current state when JS is disabled then it can't combat disabling JS.
        taeric 7y ago
        See, for me, disabling it would be not eagerly loading anything. This is literally putting the site into what is assumed the least optimized state of scripts are off. Ironic, as typically scripts off should be faster.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Why should built-in lazy loading combat turning off Javascript? It means less pages will be broken when you do that.
- stevenwliao 7y ago
  I want a browser that can predict when I'll have patchy Internet, loading and prefetching as much as possible right before.
  - taeric 7y ago
    I want pages that can load in less space. When most of my Kindle books download faster than most web pages, there is a serious problem.
    - edmundsauto 7y ago
      No there's not. Web bloat is a problem, but it's not useful to compare media-rich audio-video capable applications with the lightly formatted, text-only, Kindle book format.
      - egypturnash 7y ago
        It’s also not useful for a web page you’re visiting for a few tens of kilobytes of text and a few images to be a media-rich audio-video capable application full of trackers and ads-that-might-be-malware.
      - taeric 7y ago
        I'm comparing content to content. Yes, some is media rich, but if I want media heavy, I'm likely using Netflix/Youtube or similar anyway. If I'm using a web page, I actually actively don't want media heavy content. And you can get graphic novels on Kindle nowadays. To pretend it is just text is to undersell the formats now. Could I claim they are bloating? Certainly. Still have a long way to go before they reach current web browser bloat. Which only seems to be marching on. With no signs of restraint on what to pursue.
      - Kaiyou 7y ago
        Well, in my book webpages are there to display mainly text and maybe an image. So the comparison seems useful to me.
    - 7y ago
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  Nah. We only expect Firefox to listen to their use-base and disable it everywhere. And with some extra noise, maybe the Chromium based browsers follow.
  - plorkyeran 7y ago
    If Chrome disables lazy loading by default then web sites will continue to just use javascript lazy loading as they do today. Disabling lazy-loading in your browser is inherently something that can only be useful if it's not the default.

taeric 7y ago

Do we really expect people will be configuring their User Agent to ignore this attribute? Seems, wishful thinking.

scarejunba 7y ago
If they're annoyed they'll go on the Internet and find out how to do it. Defaults should be useful to the many, and the few can reconfigure their UA. Think about all the use-cases you could build. Maybe you could later set "I'm on a metered connection" at the OS level, have your browser pick that up, and not overuse your metered connection, etc. etc. Maybe you could have that in a browser extension that you manually toggle. No, this is far too useful.
- taeric 7y ago
  I'm still skeptical. Is there any precedent for similar features that are used today? Closest I can think of is turning off JavaScript. Which this seems made to combat, honestly. And, honestly, I doubt that has penetration worth talking about. And again, just don't put so many giant graphics on a page. Problem mostly solved. With less tech and likely faster results.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    Please read the spec. Your accusation of this being intended to defeat turning off JS is dealt with here[0]. It's only a +188 -66 patch and eminently readable. If you are discussing this without reading it, this is going to be an unproductive discussion. 0: https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3752/files#diff-36cd38f49b9afa08222c0dc9ebfe35ebR28107 https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3752/files#diff-36cd38f4...
    - taeric 7y ago
      The size is a non sequitor. This is something that otherwise requires javascript. Full stop. No? Now, I don't actually think this is being done to sidestep people that turn off javascript. Mainly because I just don't think that is a market worth worrying about. But I can't see why this is a feature that we need. Progressive loading, I could almost see. But by and large, high resolution images are just not compatible with high speed page loads. I'm not seeing how this feature actually changes that.
      - scarejunba 7y ago
        The link is to the part of the diff that enforces that it behaves identically to current unannotated tags when Javascript is disabled. Obviously if it's designed to be no different from the current state when JS is disabled then it can't combat disabling JS.
        taeric 7y ago
        See, for me, disabling it would be not eagerly loading anything. This is literally putting the site into what is assumed the least optimized state of scripts are off. Ironic, as typically scripts off should be faster.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Why should built-in lazy loading combat turning off Javascript? It means less pages will be broken when you do that.
stevenwliao 7y ago
I want a browser that can predict when I'll have patchy Internet, loading and prefetching as much as possible right before.
- taeric 7y ago
  I want pages that can load in less space. When most of my Kindle books download faster than most web pages, there is a serious problem.
  - edmundsauto 7y ago
    No there's not. Web bloat is a problem, but it's not useful to compare media-rich audio-video capable applications with the lightly formatted, text-only, Kindle book format.
    - egypturnash 7y ago
      It’s also not useful for a web page you’re visiting for a few tens of kilobytes of text and a few images to be a media-rich audio-video capable application full of trackers and ads-that-might-be-malware.
    - taeric 7y ago
      I'm comparing content to content. Yes, some is media rich, but if I want media heavy, I'm likely using Netflix/Youtube or similar anyway. If I'm using a web page, I actually actively don't want media heavy content. And you can get graphic novels on Kindle nowadays. To pretend it is just text is to undersell the formats now. Could I claim they are bloating? Certainly. Still have a long way to go before they reach current web browser bloat. Which only seems to be marching on. With no signs of restraint on what to pursue.
    - Kaiyou 7y ago
      Well, in my book webpages are there to display mainly text and maybe an image. So the comparison seems useful to me.
  - 7y ago
marcosdumay 7y ago
Nah. We only expect Firefox to listen to their use-base and disable it everywhere. And with some extra noise, maybe the Chromium based browsers follow.
- plorkyeran 7y ago
  If Chrome disables lazy loading by default then web sites will continue to just use javascript lazy loading as they do today. Disabling lazy-loading in your browser is inherently something that can only be useful if it's not the default.