4 ms·
The worst thing is those websites that have some type of 2160p type of video autoplay as a background image, making it unbrowsable on cheaper hardware devices.
by antegamisou 3y ago
The worst thing is those websites that have some type of 2160p type of video autoplay as a background image, making it unbrowsable on cheaper hardware devices.
But this is more a rant for modern webdev practices I'm not sure much can be done to circumvent it from a browser perspective.
- nine_k 3y agoBack when Opera was a worthy browser, around 2000, it had various bandwidth-saving and CPU-saving controls. In particular, it had buttons to prevent loading of large images, and IIRC for gif autoplay.
- palmfacehn 3y agoSend a HEAD request. If the file size is over the threshold, don't load it without user consent.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y agoA perfect idea for the people who almost certainly aren’t using “cheaper hardware devices”.
- mariusor 3y agoI wonder why nobody introduced a "Accept-Max-Size" request header? Chrome is toying with custom accept header[1] types but they're used by servers to request information from clients, which is completely missing the point in my opinion. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Content_negotiation#the_accept-ch_header_experimental https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Content_ne...
- contravariant 3y agoPretty sure this is part of uBlocks standard features. Honestly it's getting a bit too noticeable how a full-featured adblocker is converging on just a way to let the user take back control over the user agent.