103 ms·

There was a lot examples but the main complaint seemed to be a rephrased "We don't want users to be able to do that". Perhaps I missed a valid use case but, thi

There was a lot examples but the main complaint seemed to be a rephrased "We don't want users to be able to do that". Perhaps I missed a valid use case but, this seems a lot like wanting to disable rightclick (and giving a dubious reason why). Mozilla is right.

andrewstuart 3y ago
As I said, video is a valid replacement for animated GIFs - why should this have a picture in picture icon over it?
- Zekio 3y ago
  if it is shorter than 45 sec the pip option doesn't appear most gifs aren't that long so video can still be a replacement
  - andrewstuart 3y ago
    The video component does not always know how long a video is.
    - coder543 3y ago
      It sounds like you've identified the actual problem you need to fix. Why shouldn't the browser know how long a couple of short video files are? Also, if the video files don't have an audio track, you shouldn't get a PIP control. Why do these GIF-replacement videos have an audio track? I believe (but have not tested) that adding the `muted` attribute to the `<video>` element will have the same effect as removing the audio track from the video files themselves.
arp242 3y ago
It's not the same thing at all, because the PiP actually breaks things in a casual way, whereas right-click doesn't. Of course anyone can break anything with the inspector or user CSS, but that's also hard to do so that's fine. The core problem is that for some applications the video is inextricably linked to some other content on the page and just makes no sense on its own, but Firefox always treats the video as its own content. Often that's fine. Sometimes it's not. It's not even per-site. If you use SiteX where PiP is problematic then you can't even disable it just for that site but have to disable it globally. I don't see how the user of SiteX is served by any of this.

103 ms·

There was a lot examples but the main complaint seemed to be a rephrased "We don't want users to be able to do that". Perhaps I missed a valid use case but, thi

by whelp_24 3y ago

andrewstuart 3y ago
As I said, video is a valid replacement for animated GIFs - why should this have a picture in picture icon over it?
- Zekio 3y ago
  if it is shorter than 45 sec the pip option doesn't appear most gifs aren't that long so video can still be a replacement
  - andrewstuart 3y ago
    The video component does not always know how long a video is.
    - coder543 3y ago
      It sounds like you've identified the actual problem you need to fix. Why shouldn't the browser know how long a couple of short video files are? Also, if the video files don't have an audio track, you shouldn't get a PIP control. Why do these GIF-replacement videos have an audio track? I believe (but have not tested) that adding the `muted` attribute to the `<video>` element will have the same effect as removing the audio track from the video files themselves.
arp242 3y ago
It's not the same thing at all, because the PiP actually breaks things in a casual way, whereas right-click doesn't. Of course anyone can break anything with the inspector or user CSS, but that's also hard to do so that's fine. The core problem is that for some applications the video is inextricably linked to some other content on the page and just makes no sense on its own, but Firefox always treats the video as its own content. Often that's fine. Sometimes it's not. It's not even per-site. If you use SiteX where PiP is problematic then you can't even disable it just for that site but have to disable it globally. I don't see how the user of SiteX is served by any of this.