5 ms·

How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS. A ton of popular consumer sites - facebook, instagram, reddit/imgur are hugely image based. A f

How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS. A ton of popular consumer sites - facebook, instagram, reddit/imgur are hugely image based. A few lines of JS to make them slowly load (perhaps PNG artifacts for bonus points) and you could very effectively get the point across all while quickly serving a nice large banner. Offtopic: As a google fiber customer myself, his mention of not remembering the upload speed, made me think of how we need bandwidth to get to the point where it doesn't matter. CPU speed used to be something you quoted. For the last few computers, I don't care anymore, because its simply "enough". I fear the current telco/ISPs wouldn't agree with that idea...

iLoch 12y ago
Hah, I just posted an identical thought, and I completely agree.
RockyMcNuts 12y ago
exactly, with a clear alert/popup explaining what's going on and allowing you to switch it on/off.
privong 12y ago
> How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS. I do like this idea. However, as one of the minority of people who have disabled js by default, I'd hope this could be done in a way that doesn't break websites.
- err4nt 12y ago
  I don't know how to say it without being blunt, but I mean no offense, I'm just curious. I've heard of this mythical type of user (no-JS) but never heard their side of the coin before. I dislike ad tracking, information culling, and I think that JavaScript underpins and makes possible many of the things I dislike about the modern web. We agree on that I'm sure. But so does a web browser. So does the operating system it runs on. Turning off JavaScript only protects you from the parts of the web you don't like by breaking all of the web so much that nothing runs as it's supposed to - but what's the point in browsing a shattered web? I am a front-end dev, and I've hit the extent that CSS will allow me to style and lay out pages. I need per-element @media queries, and the ability for elements to peek inside and count their contents so I can make it fit into the space better. JavaScript lets me to do that, but I'm afraid that if you disable JavaScript from today forward you're going to run into this a lot more. It doesn't take a whole ton of JavaScript to supercharge a CSS layout, but if you block all JS you're going to be looking at a broken page. I use text-mode browsers on the command-line, and for checking the source of pages from the command-line so I understand when there's a time and place for restricted browsing and it's less useful than a full browser to me because of it. Having said all that, would you mind explaining why you choose to break your exerience of the web by disabling JavaScript, and what gains you perceive from the exercise. I'm genuinely curious but can't find any of you no-JSers in person anywhere.
  - hrjet 12y ago
    It comes down to this equation: security & privacy versus fancy look and feel. The non-JS crowd picks the former. There are many blogs that don't work at all without JS. I don't bother reading them. Those blogs might be very informative; but my security is worth more than that.
  - chill1 12y ago
    Allow me to list a few reasons I run with JS disabled by default: - Poorly written JavaScript that causes my system to stall for a time, to the point where I have to kill all my browser's processes manually; more common than you'd think. - Websites that attempt to mine cryptocurrencies using my browser with JavaScript; without my knowledge or permission. - Then there's XSS and CSRF vulnerabilities that can leverage JavaScript to hijack active sessions. And I am probably forgetting a few more reasons.. I do enable JavaScript for specific trusted websites, and I make temporary exceptions every now and then if necessary. But, I usually try to keep the list of exceptions short. In regards to needing JavaScript for styling / design purposes.. Are you sure you need it? It might take you a bit longer to tweak and restructure the HTML and CSS to accomplish your design without JS, but it's well worth it.
    - Theodores 12y ago
      Mining bitcoins in javascript on someone else's computer. Surely it would be quicker to get the 386 computers out of the landfill and use them than to mine bitcoins in javascript remotely in some botnet of sorts. I am intrigued. Can you send me a URL of somewhere that will mine bitcoins on my computer?
      - chill1 12y ago
        I don't have any websites bookmarked that employ such scripts, but DuckingIt (tm) yields the following links on that topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=9042.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=9042.0 http://www.bitcoinplus.com/miner/embeddable http://www.bitcoinplus.com/miner/embeddable https://github.com/progranism/Bitcoin-JavaScript-Miner https://github.com/progranism/Bitcoin-JavaScript-Miner You should probably not embed such scripts into your website(s). If it's not illegal, it's certainly super shady, and an extremely inefficient method of mining bitcoins.
neals 12y ago
How about preloading (or rendering) placeholder images with a short message of what is up and a timer. The timer runs down from 4 to 0 seconds and all the images get loaded.
edoloughlin 12y ago
How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS. Or how about just using a webfont? I already get a reminder of what the 'slow lane' was like when I hit a site that uses one - it does layout so I can see where the text will eventually go and then I get to wait 5 seconds for it to load and do whatever else it needs to do with its fonts.
nandhp 12y ago
In case anyone else is wondering, Google Fiber is symmetric: Up to 1 Gbps download, up to 1Gbps upload. https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/plans/ https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/plans/
arh68 12y ago
Remember the days before PNG, before JPEG, when GIFs loaded several times over? That sure was fun, watching the image get slightly clearer and clearer and then just stop, leaving you wondering about that final level of detail. Back then of course you'd be opening an image that big & detailed in a separate window, but now we've got some image-heavy websites with dozens of these things. Retina screens don't make things easier, either. Loading 12 pseduo-GIFS in serial would be the mind-killer. My imgur? Facebook? Serious question: would it be evil for Google to push out an 'educational patch' to Chrome? Firefox probably wouldn't.
- timthorn 12y ago
  They didn't load several times over, they loaded progressively. It was all the same file, but as soon as one level of detail could be displayed, it would - a very sensible optimisation in dial-up days.

iLoch 12y ago

Hah, I just posted an identical thought, and I completely agree.

RockyMcNuts 12y ago

exactly, with a clear alert/popup explaining what's going on and allowing you to switch it on/off.

privong 12y ago

> How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS. I do like this idea. However, as one of the minority of people who have disabled js by default, I'd hope this could be done in a way that doesn't break websites.

err4nt 12y ago
I don't know how to say it without being blunt, but I mean no offense, I'm just curious. I've heard of this mythical type of user (no-JS) but never heard their side of the coin before. I dislike ad tracking, information culling, and I think that JavaScript underpins and makes possible many of the things I dislike about the modern web. We agree on that I'm sure. But so does a web browser. So does the operating system it runs on. Turning off JavaScript only protects you from the parts of the web you don't like by breaking all of the web so much that nothing runs as it's supposed to - but what's the point in browsing a shattered web? I am a front-end dev, and I've hit the extent that CSS will allow me to style and lay out pages. I need per-element @media queries, and the ability for elements to peek inside and count their contents so I can make it fit into the space better. JavaScript lets me to do that, but I'm afraid that if you disable JavaScript from today forward you're going to run into this a lot more. It doesn't take a whole ton of JavaScript to supercharge a CSS layout, but if you block all JS you're going to be looking at a broken page. I use text-mode browsers on the command-line, and for checking the source of pages from the command-line so I understand when there's a time and place for restricted browsing and it's less useful than a full browser to me because of it. Having said all that, would you mind explaining why you choose to break your exerience of the web by disabling JavaScript, and what gains you perceive from the exercise. I'm genuinely curious but can't find any of you no-JSers in person anywhere.
- hrjet 12y ago
  It comes down to this equation: security & privacy versus fancy look and feel. The non-JS crowd picks the former. There are many blogs that don't work at all without JS. I don't bother reading them. Those blogs might be very informative; but my security is worth more than that.
- chill1 12y ago
  Allow me to list a few reasons I run with JS disabled by default: - Poorly written JavaScript that causes my system to stall for a time, to the point where I have to kill all my browser's processes manually; more common than you'd think. - Websites that attempt to mine cryptocurrencies using my browser with JavaScript; without my knowledge or permission. - Then there's XSS and CSRF vulnerabilities that can leverage JavaScript to hijack active sessions. And I am probably forgetting a few more reasons.. I do enable JavaScript for specific trusted websites, and I make temporary exceptions every now and then if necessary. But, I usually try to keep the list of exceptions short. In regards to needing JavaScript for styling / design purposes.. Are you sure you need it? It might take you a bit longer to tweak and restructure the HTML and CSS to accomplish your design without JS, but it's well worth it.
  - Theodores 12y ago
    Mining bitcoins in javascript on someone else's computer. Surely it would be quicker to get the 386 computers out of the landfill and use them than to mine bitcoins in javascript remotely in some botnet of sorts. I am intrigued. Can you send me a URL of somewhere that will mine bitcoins on my computer?
    - chill1 12y ago
      I don't have any websites bookmarked that employ such scripts, but DuckingIt (tm) yields the following links on that topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=9042.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=9042.0 http://www.bitcoinplus.com/miner/embeddable http://www.bitcoinplus.com/miner/embeddable https://github.com/progranism/Bitcoin-JavaScript-Miner https://github.com/progranism/Bitcoin-JavaScript-Miner You should probably not embed such scripts into your website(s). If it's not illegal, it's certainly super shady, and an extremely inefficient method of mining bitcoins.

neals 12y ago

How about preloading (or rendering) placeholder images with a short message of what is up and a timer. The timer runs down from 4 to 0 seconds and all the images get loaded.

edoloughlin 12y ago

How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS. Or how about just using a webfont? I already get a reminder of what the 'slow lane' was like when I hit a site that uses one - it does layout so I can see where the text will eventually go and then I get to wait 5 seconds for it to load and do whatever else it needs to do with its fonts.

nandhp 12y ago

In case anyone else is wondering, Google Fiber is symmetric: Up to 1 Gbps download, up to 1Gbps upload. https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/plans/ https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/plans/

arh68 12y ago

Remember the days before PNG, before JPEG, when GIFs loaded several times over? That sure was fun, watching the image get slightly clearer and clearer and then just stop, leaving you wondering about that final level of detail. Back then of course you'd be opening an image that big & detailed in a separate window, but now we've got some image-heavy websites with dozens of these things. Retina screens don't make things easier, either. Loading 12 pseduo-GIFS in serial would be the mind-killer. My imgur? Facebook? Serious question: would it be evil for Google to push out an 'educational patch' to Chrome? Firefox probably wouldn't.

timthorn 12y ago
They didn't load several times over, they loaded progressively. It was all the same file, but as soon as one level of detail could be displayed, it would - a very sensible optimisation in dial-up days.