3 ms·

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 abo

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.

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.