Slashdot Mirror
Google Chrome To Feature Built-In Image Lazy Loading (bleepingcomputer.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Future versions of Google Chrome will feature built-in support for lazy loading, a mechanism to defer the loading of images and iframes if they are not visible on the user's screen at load time. This system will first ship with Chrome for Android and Google doesn't rule out adding it to desktop versions if tests go as planned. The feature is called Blink LazyLoad, and as the name hints, it will implement the principle of "lazy loading" inside Chrome itself.
Google engineers reported page load speed improvements varying from 18% to 35%, depending on the underlying network. Other browser makers have been notified of the Chrome team's plan, but none have provided input if they plan to implement a similar feature. Compared to most JS-based lazy loading scripts that only target images, Google implementation will also target iframes.
Google engineers reported page load speed improvements varying from 18% to 35%, depending on the underlying network. Other browser makers have been notified of the Chrome team's plan, but none have provided input if they plan to implement a similar feature. Compared to most JS-based lazy loading scripts that only target images, Google implementation will also target iframes.
Cause if not I dont want it.
Not that I use Chrome anyway.
Taking control and functionality away from the web developer because browser developers think they know what's best for everyone.
As long as they include a SYNC/ASYNC parameter to the HTML elements to override the user agent's behavior, we're all good here. In fact, being able to manually specify ASYNC without any JS at all would be freaggin godsend as a developer!
I'm pretty sure that is what many browsers did in the 90s all the time.
No loading of images at all.
Say no to Googzilla, stick with the XUL browsers, extending your freedom.
This is to be implemented as an html attribute, so control is still in the hands of developers. It's a great idea, frankly.
Lazy load JS has all kinds of problems. You know how pages jump around while you scroll? That is JS lazy loading. If it is implemented natively in the browser, then the browser can do things like figure out which images to pre-load and when to do it based on variables that JS does not have access to (network speed, latency, current load...). Further, it is guaranteed to use much fewer resources than lazy-loading JS, which hooks into onscroll and onresize events, then loops over _every_ lazy-loaded image on the page, calculates its position relative to the window, and _then_ lazy loads. It is a complete and utter hack.
Hell, I would be perfectly happy with a simple "defered" attribute on image tags, like we have with script tags. Then I could just chuck this hacky shit to the curb.
Sure, this reduces page "load time" but it's the part of the load time you don't care about - content below where you're looking. All this means is when you scroll down you'll have to wait for more stuff to load that would otherwise have loaded in the background.
DeFunCt
Did you now ot? DO now.
Yes. Do this. Stop these dumb browser-overriding features.
I'm getting rather annoyed at all these so-called features in browsers that are saying a big "fuck you" to web-developers.
I'd rather just have it opt-in for developers. Say an HTML attribute on the tag you want to lazy-load. We already have a "lofi" attribute for images and I think video.
I better be able to turn this shit off or that browser is getting dropped hard.
It damn well better stay on crapdroid Chrome. (a browser that continues to get buggier with time)
installing an ad blocker (I recommend uBlock Origin) so most of that crap don't get loaded at all.
Even best is disabling javascript. I recommend "Quick Javascript Switcher".
I really hate going to a web site, wait for it to load and then suddenly BOOM! a full-page image is the first thing the appears before all the other parts of the web page. Where's the "X" so I can close it? Huh, it doesn't have one? Why can't I scroll past this? Oh, it's covering up the scroll bar.
It's like trying to watch a movie that I paid for at the theater but before the projector starts, a really loud guy sitting in the seat in front of you stands up, turns around and starts yelling you about some product or service he thinks you might be interested in because the movie kinda is about that. He won't shut up and he's blocking the screen until you agree to read the brochure he's holding out in front of him.
Yeah, that's why we all hate advertisements -- not because we purposely want to web page NOT to get ad revenue it's because the ads are really obnoxious.
I fucking hate this. Instead of "middle click to open new tab in background, come to page all loaded" it's now "scroll down, wait irritatingly long for images to load, scroll down again and it takes forever again, repeat forever." Yaknow, maybe it's not worth saving a few megabytes for things like this.
But if designers aren't constantly designing new things that nobody needs, they're going to be out of work. So I don't see this kind of user-hostile design stopping any time soon. Designers will never put their future employment opportunities behind what users want.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Taking control and functionality away from the web developer because browser developers think they know what's best for everyone.
Gab.ai has this for their pages, and it's awful.
Scrolling down, you have to wait a moment or two to load each image as it comes into view. It's a complete time waster.
I run the slider up and down a few times to activate all the images, then go browse another page while the Gab page loads. I can't imagine doing this for *all* pages on the internet - it would be an unacceptable wast of my time.
It's similar to the google image search, which only shows a quarter page of thumbnails, but if you scroll down it suddenly loads another quarter page... jumping the slider and causing you to lose your place while scanning through the images.
Again, it's intended for some purpose which is not "convenience of the viewer". We're not the customer, so it probably saves their real customers (the advertizers) somehow.
Both of these are for non-phone browsing, for which data rates and caps don't apply. I can see why phone browsing might want to save data, but why inflict this on desktop PCs?
On a fast connection this could work, but it seems odd that we have browsers that preload tabs when you so much as accidentally mouse over them to give better responsiveness but don't fully load the tab that has focus to save on bandwidth. Don't thess goals seem a little, well, contradictory?
Also on some (poorly written) webpages the width of say the text changes depending on the size of the images to either side. I would imagine it would be rather vexing to have the width of the central element changing as you scrolled.
Kinda odd as the rest of Google is figuring out how to waste more of our data by cramming preloaded "suggested" items into their apps (Android Chrome & Maps for example).
Also, expect to see new memory-usage benchmark-advertorials - Look how much less memory Chrome uses! It's magic!
Don't they realize the other hand is bloating webpages up with their near monopoly on online advertising? Plus their analytics, big CSS fonts, and promotion of more and more javascript frameworks etc.
captcha:domineer
I see that retard Alexander Peter Kowalski is posting his antisemitic conspiracy rants again.
He really needs to lean to lay off the InfoWars but sure seems to like to make even Alex Jones look sane by comparison.
Maybe I should stop disproving his security advice and maybe he will stop lashing out and making posts like the one above.
Although posts like the one above and his other ravings do show a severe mental disability.
If moron web developers indicated the size (both in pixels and MB) of every image they use, and used preogresive Mpeg everywhere an mpeg is used, browser developers would need to resort less to hacks like this
JMNSHO
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
non-phone browsing, for which data rates and caps don't apply.
You appear not to have priced out satellite Internet, fixed cellular Internet, or DSL in some parts of Iowa. They still very much have caps. (Source: Exede.com; Verizon.net)
Anonymous Coward wrote about prestitial ads on websites:
It's like trying to watch a movie that I paid for at the theater but before the projector starts, a really loud guy sitting in the seat in front of you stands up, turns around and starts yelling you about some product or service he thinks you might be interested in because the movie kinda is about that. He won't shut up and he's blocking the screen until you agree to read the brochure he's holding out in front of him.
You mean like the commercials that movie theaters have been showing for decades to supplement box office revenue? I imagine theaters do this because the movie studio gets a cut of ticket sales, but not of overpriced popcorn or these ads.
Chrome will soon block ads on sites that use prestitial ads with countdown or any prestitials on mobile.
Don't they realize the other hand is bloating webpages up with their near monopoly on online advertising?
What else would you suggest for a site to continue to pay its writers? Each site selling static ad space to advertisers? Paywalls? Or firing all employees and becoming a butcher, as Slashdot user bingoUV suggested?
Plus their analytics, big CSS fonts, and promotion of more and more javascript frameworks etc.
By "big CSS fonts", do you mean large point size or large byte size?
If the latter: Say a site uses a lightweight JS library built on the advances in vanilla JS since IE <= 11 sunset, self-hosts it, self-hosts Matomo (formerly called Piwik) for analytics, and offers a meaningful functionality subset when JS is off. How is the site supposed to make its fonts smaller to download?
How will this affect web site testing?
I'm already fighting with waits in Selenium to deal with other javascript lazy loading issues.
I'm no son of a bitch, but I can still hear noise in the 100-8000 Hz band when the CPU and GPU loads change on some machines. I'm not quite sure if it's electrical noise leaking into the audio output or magnetostriction in the power supply.
W3C's official replacement for lowsrc= is to use formats that support incremental loading, delivering a low-detail image early in the file and the difference between low- and high-detail images later. JPEG has progressive refinement, and PNG has Adam7 interlacing. But not all formats support this; for instance, I don't see a way to make it work for an SVG illustration or for anything animated.
What other replacement did you have in mind, if any?
Browsers are supposed to render everything in the viewport. Ie: only the visible part. Once the content of the viewport is determined, anything else is wasted cycles.
Is it necessarily "wasted cycles" to prepare for further scrolling of the viewport? My use case often involves loading a document, disconnecting from the Internet, and then scrolling the viewport to the remainder of the document.
Now all we have to do is figure a way to tell the browser that all the adds are off the visible section of the page and we'll never see them.
You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
preogresive Mpeg
I've heard of progressive JPEG and Adam7-interlaced PNG for still images, but not progressive MPEG. The closest thing I can think of is a CSS trick to display a JPEG filmstrip as an animation, where the underlying JPEG is stored progressively.
[Dealing with anti-adblock in] websites linked from Slashdot stories
not visit the site.
And get moderated down for making uninformed comments based on not having read the featured article.
Now how should I tell a major web search engine which domains (plural) I don't want to visit so that it doesn't return them in search results that it presents to me? Google Search limits the number of -site:example.com terms that I can add to each query.
If your website pisses me off because of the way it loads (no matter which browser I'm using), I'm simply never coming back there.
While I'm bitching, if you use light gray text on a barely darker gray background, may you rot in Hell forever.
This is all a huge exercise in gaming metrics, a natural by-product of Google's OKR system, according to the Law of Totally Expected Consequence.
I define a page as being loaded as when I can scroll down without noticing that the page wasn't really loaded in the first place.
From my vantage point, load times are getting worse and worse.
If the system instruments itself to determine the amount of image load delay exposed to the end user, and then adjust the loading threshold to the activity patterns of the user, so that the exposed delay occupies a sweet spot between interactivity and network efficiency, that would constitute a benchmark refined, rather than a benchmark gamed.
I'll even allow them to conduct a weighted average on visible load delay where page cruft is multiplied a small number (negative values, in many scenarios, are highly encouraged).
YouTube is presently pissing me off, because they are loading the video element itself, without so much as the page title or upload date visible for three to four seconds. I hardly ever stick around to watch a video with comments disabled. It's a sign of fear on the part of the channel creator, and that fear is almost always fully justified. But I regularly have to wait for four seconds now with a mostly white screen to decide whether the video makes the cut.
The system is loaded, all right, by design.
Just in time prefetching / speculative loading is not new. It's a marketing wet dream. It would be OK if pages were downloaded the same regardless of how they are rendered. Instead ad companies will be able to tell when content is viewed since it won't be _loaded_ until needed. They could still schedule requests based on initial load, just don't tie it to presentation events like scrolling, mouse over, etc.
* Don't know why Slashdot is shadowbanning posts but trying again.
Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion & Spain 1492 (Christopher Columbus the jew https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22C... sailed to the US for them to create it), France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):
Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...
Just like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer
"Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer â" so I wasnâ(TM)t lying â" and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveâ Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...
Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.
Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).
Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.
George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.
Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.
Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!
Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).
This laziness is fine as long a I can turn it off. I want a checkbox that reads "no slouching"
Why is google "shipping" browsers? Odd word choice.
Now how about not auto-playing YouTube videos by default, Google?
All my 1x1 tracking pixels are at the bottom of the page.
Google, Yellow pages et al, are meant to be a listing of results matching a search term
A list of domains to exclude from results could be construed as "a search term", as the same functionality is available with -site: terms. My practical problems are that 1. entering a long list of -site: terms every time is tedious, and 2. Google Search caps the number of -site: terms in one query. My ideological problem is the intent inherent in the fact that Google Search used to let a logged-in user store what amounts to a list of -site: terms to apply to all queries but has since removed this feature.
you'd have to consent to Google tracking you to figure out what particular things a website does that you don't like.
I'd let Google track my use of Search to save my domain blacklist, but not my visits to third-party sites operated by companies not part of Alphabet.