4 ms·
It's more about saving bandwidth on the server side, plus it allows for tracking without using JS.
by FriedrichN 5y ago
It's more about saving bandwidth on the server side, plus it allows for tracking without using JS.
- vmateixeira 5y agoExactly this. It's a problem already solved by pagination - but I guess that's not cool and doesn't allow for such granular tracking.
- nicbou 5y agoOn the client side too. I use it to avoid loading below-the-fold images until it's necessary. For example, I don't load the thumbnails of related articles. It makes a non-negligible impact on bandwidth usage and page load time.
- ahurle 5y agoTo mitigate the tracking problem, Firefox only defers loading of images when JS is enabled: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/img#attr-loading https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/im... Chrome seemed to behave this way as well when I tested it a while ago. It's covered in the spec: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/urls-and-fetching.html#lazy-loading-attributes https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/urls-and-fetching.htm...