Slashdot Mirror


Firefox Blocks Autoplaying Web Audio (engadget.com)

Mozilla's latest Nightly builds for Firefox now include an option to mute autoplaying audio. The feature was recently added to the Chrome browser, but Mozilla's update offers a few more options. According to Engadget, "You can turn the feature off entirely, force it to ask for permission, and make exceptions for specific sites." Keep in mind that these are nightly releases, so you will most likely run into some bugs. The "polished version" is likely weeks away.

121 comments

  1. Good by KixWooder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing should autoplay, ever, unless I whitelist it. No exceptions.

    --
    I hate fat people.
    1. Re:Good by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can we go back to the days where images and fonts weren't automatically downloaded? What about asking to accept every time a cookie is requested?

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you thing you are the greatest thing slnce sliced bread. I will autoplay your ass whitelist or no. Deal.

    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are trying to make an equivalency argument where there is none.

      A cookie, or image or font is not really in your face. It does not really fire a giant sequence of events from the visual lobes at the back of our brain using our resources (10% of our bodies energy) to operate.

      There is a reason we get so much more upset over rich media advertisements trying to get our attention, our annoyance is biologically based, we are attempting to conserve energy for our function and survival. Advertisers love to make arguments about how all of these things are equivalent and the same, however audible devices are utilized for crowd control against people all the time. Audible devices were utilized in many cases as a means of driving people who were dug in out of compounds after long standoffs as well.

      So please put down your straw man and politely back away from the conversation before we realize that your a media shill and we decide to eat your face off.

    4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fonts? That'd be great. I already have lots of fonts and I'd rather just pick a favorite than use whatever some web page suggests. Wouldn't you?

      Promiscuous font downloading is also probably why our browsers are so easy to fingerprint. Please, add the "ignore suggested fonts" option. Seriously. And it should be enabled by default probably. What's the downside?

    5. Re:Good by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      What about asking to accept every time a cookie is requested?

      That's a feature I really miss. Obviously, there must be an option "always {accept,reject,session} for domain spying.tripleclick.com".

      Somehow, extensions fare really poorly here.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re:Good by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      Please don't go back to the days without images. I avoid ads by disabling pictures and if everybody starting doing it, they would find a way around it.

    7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i already filter every font i come across with adblock like fontawesome, webfont.woff, etc to remove these shitty stylistic fonts that 90% of webpages force on me

    8. Re:Good by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Good ol' Ad Words. Oh, what's this relevant link in the article I'm reading? Better mouse over it and... sfgsj;gsa;;dglhasldg

    9. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'll raise you.

      *NOTHING* should ANIMATE *ever* without click activation.

    10. Re:Good by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      How do you expect the page to render then at all? The pixels will have to change from white to the page body background color. At what point do you expect it to render or not, because every resource linked by the website itself can and will cause a render?

      Hint: if you really want that much control over rendering, don't use an image/video rendering browser: use a text only browser like links.

    11. Re:Good by antdude · · Score: 2

      You can do those today. Use a text web browser like Lynx! :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    12. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft. He made no argument whatsoever.
      A "request in tandem" is not a straw man OR an argument - it's just mere discussion.

      You are the media shill, with your douchereddit pseudologic bullshit

    13. Re:Good by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What about asking to accept every time a cookie is requested?

      What do you mean back to the days? Europeans would love to know!

      Jokes about the stupidity of EU legislation that forced the "we use cookies" popup on every site, there's no going forward or going back. Ther's only understanding the change in context of the world and why we did things the way we did.

      1) Asking about cookies made sense back in a time when their use was rare. Now it makes more sense to block 3rd party cookies, and often erase them after the session completes.
      2) Blocking images made sense when the internet was slow and we were being asked to punch the monkey. Now it actively breaks websites to do so.
      3) Autoplaying videos made sense when the only site serving videos was youtube. Now I can't even frigging browse CNN without my computer speakers muted. I would turn it off, but see my response to 1.

      Time is irrelevant, only context matters.

    14. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you're right. Everything should just be automatic. When you visit sites that have videos, they should play automatically and simultaneously if there is more than one. When you visit sites that have files, they should download and execute automatically as admin to avoid any issues with those pesky user permissions from interfering.

      I completely agree with your tacit implication that we shouldn't have to think or act upon anything. Why can't our computers just make all of our decisions and do everything for us?

    15. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried using uBlock Origin? It lets you block images, fonts and scripts on a per domain basis. Works well in Firefox and Chrome.

    16. Re:Good by sexconker · · Score: 1

      So please put down your straw man and politely back away from the conversation before we realize that your a media shill and we decide to eat your face off.

      WTF?

      I'd genuinely like to go back to having websites not download custom fonts, not download tons of images, not run scripts, not expect cookies (let alone third party cookies), etc. but still work and function as a proper website. I'll whitelist what I want.

    17. Re:Good by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I do use it. I didn't know I could block fonts with it.

    18. Re:Good by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You seem to think my previous post was ironic. I was being genuine.

      I'd prefer the web to work without all that shit, and the expectation to be that I have to whitelist your shit if you want me to see it.

    19. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I apologise then.

  2. Finally by bhcompy · · Score: 1

    The fact that it's taken until 2018 for this to happen is a joke. Luckily, NoScript has existed for about as long as this has been a problem

    1. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! Also, whatever happened to the ESC-key stops any animated gif.
      It's all BS and they make it seem like they're doing us a favor by doing us a favor.

      CAP === 'doughnut'

  3. ...yet.. by JMJimmy · · Score: 1, Troll

    No one cares because FireFox is dead.

    They killed the addon ecosystem for "major speed improvements" that could only top Chrome in 2 benchmarks.

    Such a waste of potential.

    1. Re:...yet.. by markdavis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >"No one cares because FireFox is dead. They killed the addon ecosystem for "major speed improvements" that could only top Chrome in 2 benchmarks."

      Don't feel the troll.....

      The ecosystem they "killed" actually bounced back quite quickly. I use a lot of strange addons, and nearly every one was available immediately or just a few months after the switchover.

      And Firefox is, by most measurements, just as fast, overall, as Chrome is NOW. And yet is more driven by the community, cares about privacy more, and is not a closed binary. Plus, I trust Mozilla a lot more than Google, who has their hands in everyone's business.

      I am far more annoyed by the "Chromification" of Firefox, but that is not new, and is still far less Chromey than Chrome.

    2. Re:...yet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mom is dead.

    3. Re:...yet.. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Firefox give the user the ability to stop ads.
      Other browser brands are ads.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:...yet.. by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      could only top Chrome in 2 benchmarks

      It's more than 2 in practice. Here's a real world benchmark.

    5. Re:...yet.. by Trogre · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you'll find the decline started well before that, back when they ousted THE GUY WHO INVENTED JAVASCRIPT over some stupid SJW non-issue.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    6. Re:...yet.. by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      The "bounce back" was for useless stuff that provides little to no value, much like Chrome's addons. No SQLite manager, no FTP, no SSH, no TableTools, no "advanced" right click, etc. It was just the gimmicky garbage that was left behind in the aftermath because addon developers no longer have the access they need to create useful tools. WebExtensions are woefully inadequate compared to XUL.

      Firefox is slower than Chrome https://venturebeat.com/2018/0... only coming ahead in Kraken/WebXPRT.

      And that "privacy" you so love - is non-existent. They just backdoor it through "experiments" which are exempt from their privacy policy and supposedly have privacy polices of their own, but in reality it's whatever data they want to harvest, they can, and will - with no oversight.

    7. Re:...yet.. by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      uBlock Origin works just fine in Chrome

    8. Re:...yet.. by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      My mom is fighting cancer you insensitive fuck

    9. Re:...yet.. by markdavis · · Score: 3, Informative

      >"The "bounce back" was for useless stuff that provides little to no value,"

      Yeah, like Adblock, Ublock Origin, HTML5 block, Nuke Anything, NoScript. Give me a break. There are TONS of useful and valuable addons. The ones that suffered the most were the ones tweaking the UI (a few I do miss) and hopefully that will recover too, once additional API's are released.

      >"Firefox is slower than Chrome only coming ahead in Kraken/WebXPRT."

      When I look at many different benchmarks from different people, what *I* see is a mixture of wins and loses, and mostly very narrow margins. For NORMAL, REAL-WORLD browsing, most users will notice no speed difference between current Firefox and current Chrome. It is like worrying about a car that can go 0-60 in 6 seconds and one that goes 0-60 in 5.75 seconds.... really doesn't matter that much.

      >"And that "privacy" you so love - is non-existent. They just backdoor it through "experiments" which are exempt from their privacy policy and supposedly have privacy polices of their own, but in reality it's whatever data they want to harvest, they can, and will - with no oversight."

      As far as I am aware, all those "experiments" in Firefox have a simple "OFF" setting in the preferences and/or in about:config. And without nags, and without reverting back on after updates. Meanwhile, Chrome is a Google mystery binary that does anything it wants - with no oversight AND no ability to look at the code. Google does seem to care about security at least as much as Mozilla. But privacy? Mozilla has taken that lead many times.

    10. Re:...yet.. by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      Yes. If you compare just Firefox versus Chrome in those benchmarks, Firefox finishes ahead of Chrome 5 times out of 9.

      So Firefox beats Chrome in synthetic benchmarks as well as in real world benchmarks. You're right, Firefox is plainly the better choice.

    11. Re:...yet.. by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      And I should also add that in all 9 benchmarks Firefox is never last. Whereas Chrome is last 4 times and Edge is last 5 times.

    12. Re:...yet.. by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      Firefox is slower than Chrome

      You should review those benchmarks. In the Firefox versus Chrome comparison, Firefox beats Chrome 5 times out of 9. It's also interesting to note that Firefox is never last in any of the benchmarks, whereas Chrome is last 4 times and Edge is last 5 times.

      So I would say what you've demonstrated is that Firefox is the best browser in practical terms. Firefox delivers the best performance over a wide range of benchmarks.

    13. Re:...yet.. by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      That's fair about adblock/etc - except I can get those on any platform. The value the others were providing was that they were available nowhere else. Additional APIs could be added later, but take web sockets - Mozilla's official response is "it's too complicated".

      > It is like worrying about a car that can go 0-60 in 6 seconds and one that goes 0-60 in 5.75 seconds.... really doesn't matter that much.

      That's my point - the benefits XUL provided in terms of UI/UX enhancements far outweighed the minimal speed gains.

      > As far as I am aware, all those "experiments" in Firefox have a simple "OFF" setting in the preferences and/or in about:config

      There are 2 different about:config flags and DXR needs to be disabled, which I'm not even sure is possible.

    14. Re:...yet.. by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      That's fair about adblock/etc - except I can get those on any platform.

      But on which platform do they work best? It's worth reading what the author of uBlock Origin (gorhill) has to say about it.

    15. Re:...yet.. by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      Tit-for-tat all you want fact is, users have spoken. Firefox is on course to drop below 5% usage while Chrome is on course to top 60%.

    16. Re:...yet.. by theweatherelectric · · Score: 3, Informative

      What tit-for-tat? I'm talking about practical realities. The simple fact is that Firefox provides a better API for blockers than Chrome does, even after the change to WebExtensions. The author of NoScript thinks Firefox's add-on API is better than Chrome's as well.

    17. Re:...yet.. by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"fact is, users have spoken. Firefox is on course to drop below 5% usage while Chrome is on course to top 60%."

      Which is 100% only because Google plays "unfair" and pushed Chrome on people with non-stop harassment from their sites and services. Not conjecture; fact. I saw and experienced it. That isn't "users have spoken", it is "users took an easy path resistance" What is proves is that advertisement works. It has little to do with browser merits and everything to do with marketing- something Google's entire business model and world revolves around.

    18. Re:...yet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll feel the troll as much I like, thank you very much.

    19. Re:...yet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two of my favorite extensions are impossible in 57+ :(

      Classic Theme Restorer and Tab Mix Plus.

    20. Re:...yet.. by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Two of my favorite extensions are impossible in 57+ :( Classic Theme Restorer and Tab Mix Plus."

      Yep, first thing I wanted was "classic theme restorer" because I HATE tabs on top. Really, that is the only reason I want/need it. There is a workaround, however, by having a custom userChrome.css

      https://support.mozilla.org/en...

  4. No autoplay, period. by markdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Muting audio is not enough. It shouldn't play video AT ALL. Video and animation, audible or not, is still extremely irritating, distracting, and consumes copious amount of bandwidth and CPU, and thus power and battery. And all that slows further rendering and makes using slower/older machines that much more painful. And on multiuser systems, it affects other people and processes, too (yes, I know that is rare nowadays, but I deal with it all the time on big systems, and remote viewing and remote X sessions).

    If you want something MUCH better and RIGHT NOW, see this addon: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

    It hasn't been updated recently, and has some flaws, but it beats the hell out of anything else I can come up with right now. Works well most of the time.

    I really wish we could stop all the annoying animation and scrolling/fading/creeping crap on sites, too. And no, disabling javascript is no longer an option.

    1. Re:No autoplay, period. by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And no, disabling javascript is no longer an option.

      If you don't disable JavaScript, sites will use a setInterval to load each frame of the video as a JPEG and display it, as in this demo.

    2. Re:No autoplay, period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      about:config

      media.autoplay.enabled;false

      Not hard.

    3. Re:No autoplay, period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      audio and video shouldn't just NOT autoplay... they shouldn't even start to load. except, perhaps, a thumbnail image for videos (from the actual video and not some bullshit cover image bait like yt has so much of). when they buffer anyway, they still slow down your net, chew up precious data, and bog down the browser.

    4. Re:No autoplay, period. by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"about:config media.autoplay.enabled;false Not hard."

      That option is not reliable and breaks LOTS of sites, where it then becomes impossible to play anything you do want. Plus it also has no method of dealing with site preferences. This is why I suggested the addon and ignored media.autoplay.enabled. Believe me, I have spent MANY hours testing both. Mozilla has several major bug reports about media.autoplay.enabled and they seem unable or unwilling to fix it, but we shall see.

      For now, the addon works a hell of a lot better...

    5. Re:No autoplay, period. by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"audio and video shouldn't just NOT autoplay... they shouldn't even start to load. except, perhaps, a thumbnail image for videos (from the actual video and not some bullshit cover image bait like yt has so much of). when they buffer anyway, they still slow down your net, chew up precious data, and bog down the browser."

      Good point. But the addon I suggested also has optional settings to disable the preloading/buffering, too :) And it has site-by-site, remembered preferences. I would love to see something like it tightly integrated right into Firefox.

    6. Re:No autoplay, period. by Trogre · · Score: 1

      This.

      Every time I open Firefox and restore my previous session I have to hunt through all my windows and pause every YouTube video that auto-plays when I'm bombarded by a wall of noise.

      At least they don't background-load tabs when restoring any more. That's something.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    7. Re:No autoplay, period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      about:config, search for "autoplay" and set to "false". Done.

    8. Re:No autoplay, period. by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"about:config, search for "autoplay" and set to "false". Done."

      As I have pointed out in other posts, that option:

      1) Is not reliable
      2) Is not site-specific/configurable
      3) Has no UI controls
      4) Breaks many sites in a way that makes it impossible to play ANY media on them

      That is why I suggest the addon. Try it, just make sure to set the about:config option back to the default first.

    9. Re:No autoplay, period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >1) Is not reliable

      I've got it set and have yet to run into difficulty with it on any website I visit.

      >2) Is not site-specific/configurable
      Who cares? I don't want autoplay AT ALL, on any site. Not only that, but I don't want media data downloading in the background for videos or audio that I've no intention of consuming. Just fucking wastes bandwidth.

      >3) Has no UI controls
      Again, who cares? I want that setting for all the sites I go to. Set it once in the configuration editor and forget it about it. It's perfect.

      >4) Breaks many sites in a way that makes it impossible to play ANY media on them

      Examples? I've yet to run into any.

    10. Re:No autoplay, period. by trawg · · Score: 1

      I've had the following two settings set in Firefox ever since I discovered them and I never get autoplaying media:

      media.autoplay.enabled = false
      media.block-autoplay-until-in-foreground = true

    11. Re:No autoplay, period. by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"I've had the following two settings set in Firefox ever since I discovered them and I never get autoplaying media:"

      And I tried those on and off for many months and discovered that although they stop just as much autoplay as the addon does, they also blocked many sites from EVER working with ANY media. One good example (among many I discovered) was Spotify, which became unusable.... not the case with the addon. And no, I didn't keep a list of the dozens of other important places that stopped working because others were doing so in many Mozilla bug reports such as:

      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...
      1400625
      1313233
      1231886
      1433987
      1433987
      etc

    12. Re:No autoplay, period. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you don't disable JavaScript, sites will use a setInterval to load each frame of the video as a JPEG and display it, as in this demo.

      Honestly given the choice between breaking nearly every webpage on the internet without manual intervention, and having a soundless animation display I'll pick the latter any day of the week.

    13. Re:No autoplay, period. by trawg · · Score: 1

      Oh yeh, totally true. I find I get more benefit from no media though than the occasional annoyance of a few broken sites. Vimeo is another one that had a huge bug report from years ago they showed no sign of fixing.

      I tend to just fire up Chrome if I need to play something like that.

    14. Re:No autoplay, period. by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "Honestly given the choice between breaking nearly every webpage on the internet without manual intervention, and having a soundless animation display I'll pick the latter any day of the week."

      Honestly given the choice between breaking nearly every webpage on the internet without manual intervention, and having a soundless animation display I'll pick the former any day of the week.

    15. Re:No autoplay, period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why options/add-ons are so great.

      This way you can both be happy.

    16. Re:No autoplay, period. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You do you man, you do you.

    17. Re:No autoplay, period. by martinfb · · Score: 1

      Abso-freaking-lutely! Totally agree!

      Advertising companies need to stop screwing-up the internet like they did TV.
      Stop shoving demeaning, insulting crap at us!

      I hate to say it, yet we really do need regulation in this country/global economy.

      And, if your site requires me to disable my ad blockers, then I don't need to visit your site.
      I have, and sometimes do, click on simple ad links, yet totally react against popup, auto-start anything.

      Mouse-overs suck, too. It is perfectly fine to allow me to click first.

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
    18. Re:No autoplay, period. by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Damn, now I'm a Portlandia character. I don't even live in Portland any more!

  5. Good luck blocking all autoplay by tepples · · Score: 1

    Browsers allow a muted VP8, VP9, or AVC file to autoplay because allowing it takes less Internet bandwidth than falling back to animated GIF, a sequence of discrete JPEG files, or a JPEG filmstrip animated with CSS sprites.

    If you plan to build an extension to block all autoplay, here are some test cases. Good luck getting them all.

    1. Re:Good luck blocking all autoplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't want it to fall back to anything. I want it to put a big blank rectangle, with a standardized play button in the center, that does not begin downloading anything until I click on the play button. Webpages do not need to be the multi-megabyte javascript monstrosities that they currently are.

    2. Re:Good luck blocking all autoplay by tepples · · Score: 1

      I want it to put a big blank rectangle, with a standardized play button in the center, that does not begin downloading anything until I click on the play button.

      I can see how the browser would recognize VP8, VP9, AVC, GIF, or APNG cases to transform them into a play button. But how would the browser recognize the sequence and filmstrip methods before they start moving?

    3. Re:Good luck blocking all autoplay by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      You don't need an extension. Firefox already has the media.autoplay.enabled setting in about:settings. Set it to false.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    4. Re:Good luck blocking all autoplay by tepples · · Score: 1
    5. Re:Good luck blocking all autoplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh, gee tuppels...maybe using the fkn MARKUP tags? do you think?
      you know, that big extensible meta-container that browsers already recognize?

      you know like <THING src="https://request-this-url.to/download/THING" misc="Info about THING" >

      imagine that

    6. Re:Good luck blocking all autoplay by tepples · · Score: 1

      Sequence and filmstrip methods use the same <img> markup as a static photo. How would the browser distinguish <img> markup that represents a static JPEG, PNG, or still GIF from <img> markup that represents an animated GIF, a container for an image sequence, or a filmstrip?

    7. Re:Good luck blocking all autoplay by samwichse · · Score: 1

      I don't know how it works, but HTML5 autoplayblocker for Chrome works pretty well. Maybe it's best left as an extension, though?

    8. Re:Good luck blocking all autoplay by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Sequence and filmstrip methods use the same markup as a static photo. How would the browser distinguish markup that represents a static JPEG, PNG, or still GIF from markup that represents an animated GIF, a container for an image sequence, or a filmstrip?

      Easy, you only render the first frame and that's it. There were options to not play animated GIFs since browsers were first released, so all Firefox and other browsers need to do is simply modify the image renderer to only draw out the first frame. They can draw a simple play button to indicate that there are more images waiting to be drawn onto the page, but are currently blocked from doing so.

      No one said you had to render out every frame of a multi-frame image. Just render the first, offer to play back other frames and leave it at that.

    9. Re:Good luck blocking all autoplay by tepples · · Score: 1

      Let me know if I understand your recommendation correctly. Unless and until the user has clicked the play button for a particular document, the browser should:

      • Keep video and animated GIF paused, and draw a play button
      • Draw <canvas> element as a play button instead of its content
      • If script changes the position or "src" attribute of an <img> element or the background position or image of any element more than once, refuse the change and draw a play button
      • Treat CSS transitions as having a duration zero and ignore CSS animation, and draw a play button if they are detected
    10. Re:Good luck blocking all autoplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how would the browser recognize the sequence and filmstrip methods before they start moving?

      Where did he say that he wanted that? From what I see, he said:

      "I don't want it to fall back to anything. I want it to put a big blank rectangle, with a standardized play button in the center, that does not begin downloading anything until I click on the play button."

      So where did you get animated GIFs and shit from? Oh, I forgot, you're Tepples. You love making excuses and erecting strawmen arguments.

    11. Re:Good luck blocking all autoplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like this

      This is 2018. No need for all of that img, canvas, CSS and GIF crap just to display a video.

    12. Re:Good luck blocking all autoplay by tepples · · Score: 1

      So where did you get animated GIFs and shit from?

      The website's script will notice that the web browser has converted the video to "a big blank rectangle, with a standardized play button in the center", remove this "big blank rectangle, with a standardized play button in the center" from the DOM, and replace it with something that the browser doesn't recognize as video. How should I have phrased it differently to get that across?

    13. Re:Good luck blocking all autoplay by tepples · · Score: 1

      This discussion is about tools to block video from playing automatically. My hypothesis is that if a website's script notices that the browser is blocking HTML5 video from playing, the script will replace the HTML5 video with a different way of presenting video that isn't blocked.

  6. Video pop-outs? by Train0987 · · Score: 3, Funny

    What's the easiest way to block the auto pop-out of videos when you scroll down? Whoever came up with that needs to be drug out back...

    "Hey, I want this annoying video at the top of the page to follow me when I scroll past it and block the text I came here to read." - said no one ever.

    1. Re:Video pop-outs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up please

    2. Re:Video pop-outs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      drug out back.... and hit with a shovel, made to dig their own grave, shot, and then shot again. then put to work in a Chinese iphone assembly factory.

        after they jump to their death where a suicide net wont catch them.. then scrape their 5-week dried splat of a corpse up and then toss it into their grave. and piss on it.

      all that is far less damage than these autoplay videos has done to humanity. a slow punishment is NOT even close to a repayment.

    3. Re:Video pop-outs? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"What's the easiest way to block the auto pop-out of videos when you scroll down? Whoever came up with that needs to be drug out back..."

      Oh, indeed. It is like, "Let's do the most annoying thing we can think of to users- autoplay video"! "Oh drat, that is not annoying ENOUGH, so let's make it FOLLOW the user down the page!" What a great idea! Next up, autoplaying video AS A BACKGROUND?

      This is as close as I can get to effectively dealing with it right now...
      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

    4. Re:Video pop-outs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn JavaScript off. If the site then refuses to render, find another website. There are billions of them.

  7. media.autoplay.enabled not very effective by tepples · · Score: 1

    I just tried your suggestion in Firefox ESR 52 on Debian 9, with media.autoplay.enabled changed to false. Though the preference successfully blocked VP8, VP9, and AVC video from autoplaying, several methods of presenting video managed to sneak past it: GIF, JPEG sequence, PNG sequence, JPEG filmstrip, and PNG filmstrip.

    1. Re:media.autoplay.enabled not very effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to present a single example of any of these fallback methods that isn't on your website?

    2. Re:media.autoplay.enabled not very effective by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"I just tried your suggestion in Firefox ESR 52 on Debian 9, with media.autoplay.enabled changed to false. Though the preference successfully blocked VP8, VP9, and AVC video from autoplaying, several methods of presenting video managed to sneak past it: GIF [pineight.com], JPEG sequence [pineight.com], PNG sequence [pineight.com], JPEG filmstrip [pineight.com], and PNG filmstrip [pineight.com]."

      Well, like I said, it isn't perfect. GIF animation/video can be blocked already, just set image.animation_mode;none in about:config. So that is easy. Fortunately, the manual sequence "pseudo-video" stuff you listed isn't used much out there. So it is still pretty effective for general browsing purposes.

    3. Re:media.autoplay.enabled not very effective by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Well, like I said, it isn't perfect. GIF animation/video can be blocked already, just set image.animation_mode;none in about:config"

      P.S. that setting will also stop the playing of animated PNG (APNG) files. However, it will not stop javascript programs that create a sequenced display of numerous, static PNG or JPEG images.

    4. Re:media.autoplay.enabled not very effective by tepples · · Score: 2

      Fortunately, the manual sequence "pseudo-video" stuff you listed isn't used much out there.

      Yet. Once Flash blocking became commonplace, advertisers switched to autoplaying HTML5 video. Once it becomes common to block HTML5 video, advertisers are likely to embrace these fallback methods.

    5. Re:media.autoplay.enabled not very effective by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Yet. Once Flash blocking became commonplace, advertisers switched to autoplaying HTML5 video. Once it becomes common to block HTML5 video, advertisers are likely to embrace these fallback methods."

      Unfortunately, you might be right. This is why I keep saying that browsers need to be smarter and need tools to start trapping and throttling javascript tight loops, CPU usage, image flipping, etc. Seems like we have almost no control at all right now.

  8. Bug 1325692 still blocks Keybinder by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    I use a lot of strange addons, and nearly every one was available immediately or just a few months after the switchover.

    That's a big "nearly". There's no counterpart to Keybinder for Firefox 57 and later, and there won't be until bug 1325692 is fixed.

    1. Re:Bug 1325692 still blocks Keybinder by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"That's a big "nearly". There's no counterpart to Keybinder [github.com] for Firefox 57 and later, and there won't be until bug 1325692 [mozilla.org] is fixed."

      The "nearly" will vary greatly from user to user, of course. You are absolutely correct that there are some addons that are waiting for bug fixes, and others waiting for a suitable API to be released. The latter is a shame, I think perhaps they rushed too quickly into this without giving enough API hooks and support. Still, the "average" user, will probably find all or nearly all the addons they need available or a suitable alternate addon that is workable...

      I think of the 7 I was using pre-57, 4 were immediately ready, 1 I found an alternative quickly (and the original came back in a few months but by then, I think the alternate is better and kept it), 1 I had to wait about a month with no good alternate, 1 I didn't care about too about much and it might come later with an API change, and 1 there is no further support or hope for, but I also later discovered wasn't really needed.

    2. Re:Bug 1325692 still blocks Keybinder by markdavis · · Score: 1

      Reply to self; My numbers added to 8 instead of 7 :) Sorry, can't edit posts, dern it.

    3. Re:Bug 1325692 still blocks Keybinder by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      Video downloads are still broken and require desktop applications to combine video and audio streams. Fucking stupid

    4. Re:Bug 1325692 still blocks Keybinder by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      That's a big "nearly"

      It's a small nearly. There are 14,862 users of Keybinder. Why should all the other improvements be delayed for one feature used by a small number of people?

    5. Re:Bug 1325692 still blocks Keybinder by Trogre · · Score: 1

      No they're not, no they don't, and yes, it would be if it were true.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    6. Re:Bug 1325692 still blocks Keybinder by tepples · · Score: 2

      Because right now, an accidental press of Ctrl+Q when reaching for Ctrl+Tab causes data loss in those forms that "Restore Previous Session" cannot recover, such as Slashdot D2 comment forms.

    7. Re:Bug 1325692 still blocks Keybinder by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      So use this add-on. It works on Windows and macOS. It doesn't work on Linux. But again, it only has 2,308 users. Let's pretend that if it did work on Linux, the user count would increase by 50%. So you're asking Mozilla to stop the world for the sake of 1,154 users. It just doesn't seem practical.

      If this deeply matters to you then you should get involved with the bug you mentioned and help implement it. Why don't you do that? It's a nice, targeted project with a clear beginning and end.

    8. Re:Bug 1325692 still blocks Keybinder by tepples · · Score: 1

      It works on Windows and macOS. It doesn't work on Linux.

      Is it recommended to run Firefox for Windows in Wine on Linux?

      If this deeply matters to you then you should get involved with the bug you mentioned and help implement it. Why don't you do that?

      Reason 1 of 3: Switching from Firefox ESR 52 doesn't matter enough to me to devote 30 GB of drive space on my primary PC (source).
      Reason 2 of 3: My primary PC is already maxed out at 4 GB of RAM, one 2 GB stick in each of its 2 slots, and switching from Firefox ESR 52 doesn't matter enough to me to sit through hours of thrashing swap.
      Reason 3 of 3: Switching from Firefox ESR 52 doesn't matter enough to me to quit my day job to free up enough time to learn my way around the Firefox code base.

    9. Re:Bug 1325692 still blocks Keybinder by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      So, in summary, you're not proactive. I understand.

    10. Re:Bug 1325692 still blocks Keybinder by tepples · · Score: 1

      Being proactive is cost prohibitive for many.

    11. Re:Bug 1325692 still blocks Keybinder by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Finding one example in an entire ecosystem isn't a "big" anything. I hope your killer addon gets ported successfully, I really do, but to use that as an example that the majority of the ecosystem didn't bounce back doesn't make a lot of sense, especially given that by all accounts it wasn't a very popular plugin.

  9. When can we block tabs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tabs suck.

    Classic Theme Restorer add-on used to provide ability to block them.

    When will Firefox restore this functionality?

  10. New hidden config by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Open about:config and add the new hidden pref media.autoplay.allow-muted and set it to false to return to the old behavior and keep your sanity.

  11. I'm slow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My internet surfing needs have been met by generally out-of-date hardware for 20 years. (I'm poor). Which gives me a window in something: websites that are a heavy load and use up computer resources. The ones than take minutes, or crash or freeze up, that use up ram.
    I used to think, "If I could only tell these web designers that their site is causing lots of computers out there to slow to a crawl..."
    Then one day, it hit me. Some web designers purposely design sites to use up computing resources. The last thing they want is to be just one of 20 tabs. If you aren't paying attention to their site, they make it impossible to go anyplace on the net.
    Tell me I'm paranoid.

    1. Re:I'm slow... by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      Well maybe, or it could be thst the developers ofc have fast hw, and th tesrvsuites (if any are used at all) make asunmtions aboutaverage user hw and/or sw (even connecton bandwith and latency) if you fall below these you are unfurtunstle most lightly out of luck. Are these avarage values set correctly, that I don’t know. This was a rather long winded way of saying, the web devs migt not intentionaly meke thimgs heavier then needed but unfortunatly the end yup being that way anyway.

      Well that was my $0.02 (use other corrency and ammount as apropriate) If you find this cracy, reply and correct me if you gave the time and energy all usefull feedback is alreciated, have a nice day

  12. Autoplay is not a feature you can just disable by roca · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of people say "why haven't browsers just turned off autoplay" as if "autoplay" is a browser feature you can just turn off without affecting anything else. Unfortunately, it is not.

    As a matter of fact there is an HTML5 "autoplay" feature, but it's hardly ever used. The "autoplaying" audio and video you experience is mostly scripts loading a video and calling "play()". Unfortunately, in the browser, there's no straightforward way to distinguish that from legitimate uses, e.g. a game playing a sound triggered by some event. It's even more difficult for non-audio cases, because Web developers can *and do* create "autoplaying" videos even without using script, e.g. using animated GIFs or sequences of PNG images selected by CSS. Those are much worse for users in every way than letting the site play video in a proper format.

    So, browsers mostly aren't trying to block autoplaying silent video, and have to come up with heuristics to block autoplaying audio. There are tradeoffs because false positives are bad; e.g. making it hard for games to play sounds is a problem. It's easy for autoplay detection heuristics to break legitimate Web sites and cause users --- maybe not you, but other users --- to get upset, and Web developers too.

    In short, this is a very hard problem, there are no perfect solutions, and the solutions being deployed now are the result of a lot of work over quite a long period of time.

  13. CSS Sprite Sheet Animations with steps() by tepples · · Score: 1

    The "JPEG filmstrip" and "PNG filmstrip" methods are based on "CSS Sprite Sheet Animations with steps()" by Guil Hernandez.

  14. In theory, the game could be a native app by tepples · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, in the browser, there's no straightforward way to distinguish that from legitimate uses, e.g. a game playing a sound triggered by some event.

    Staunch anti-JavaScript advocates would point out that if a game wants to play a sound, the developer of the game can distribute the game as a separate executable that the user can choose to download to his or her computer and launch there. Some would go as far as to encourage the developer to distribute the game in source code form that the user can inspect and compile.

    1. Re:In theory, the game could be a native app by roca · · Score: 1

      Staunch anti-Javascript advocates are welcome to run NoScript, block all scripts, and not play any Web games.

    2. Re:In theory, the game could be a native app by lgw · · Score: 1

      Web games are basically dead now, anyway. Sites like kongregate only work on niche browsers like IE and Firefox.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:In theory, the game could be a native app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! "Web games"? Nobody has played those pieces of shit in years and when they did, they used Flash, not JavaScript.

      Holy crap man, you're out of touch. Welcome to 2018.

    4. Re:In theory, the game could be a native app by Alypius · · Score: 1

      So...you're saying Joe Cartoon isn't a thing anymore?

  15. Why is this still an issue? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    I mean, why is it the case that browsers do not come with a setting to allow users to specify whether or not they want to enable autoplay? Are there any technical reasons why this might a difficult feature to implement?

    1. Re:Why is this still an issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Firefox has such a setting, at least, in the ESR versions. You can open up about:config and set "media.autoplay.enabled" to false to stop autoplaying any media. You can also set the readahead limit on how much of the media data is downloaded into cache before playing. It's very handy for metered internet connections. Figures that Mozilla fucked that up in the newer versions, and now they have to go back an do a half-ass job of re-implementing what they already had perfect in the old versions.

      I'm not looking forward to upgrading when the current ESR branch is EOL'd. Probably will just stay on it for the conceivable future.

  16. Tabs On Bottom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Call me Mr Underwhelmed. Let me know when the arrogant wankers put back the option for Tabs on Bottom...

  17. Follow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla again follows in the footsteps of google chrome. It's to bad when users ask for features, they are just ignored. When their entire userbase is gone, they want to listen. Just die already.

  18. GOOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ones who came up with all those autoplay fuckery ads should all get a week of scaphism for their efforts.

  19. Three paints should be enough by tepples · · Score: 1

    At what point do you expect it to render or not, because every resource linked by the website itself can and will cause a render?

    Assume that a viewer is seeking to avoid animation as an accommodation for a sensory processing issue. For such a viewer, three paints should be enough, one after the document reaches each of these states:

    1. Above the fold ready CSS specified in the <head> has downloaded, and enough HTML has downloaded to make the document at least one viewport-height tall. 2. Ready The HTML and any CSS specified in the <head> have downloaded. Corresponds roughly to the later of the "load" event on <head> and the "DOMContentLoaded" event on <body>. 3. Load All resources have downloaded. Corresponds to the "load" event on <body>

    On a sufficiently fast connection, time from ATF to Ready is usually short enough that even the ATF paint can be skipped.

  20. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who's been using this feature in Safari since AFAIR last year, I can tell autoplay blocking makes browsing A LOT less annoying. Nice to see Firefox catching up.

  21. Amateurism by Vlijmen+Fileer · · Score: 1

    I'm amazed at the amateurism with with browser companies pick up this sort of stuff.

    Today it is sounds (but not fonts).
    Yesterday it was videos (but not sounds).
    Somewhere along the line it was pages hijacking browser shortcuts. And browser companies even going so far as to /not/ fully capture all, and make the default wrong. And they did so after this issie had been reported what, /decades/ earlier?
    Maximising the browser window, in the past. Pop-ups. The list goes on and on.

    Everything gets fucking approached one by one, without a streamlined architecture or thinking behind it. Let alone interface.

    Failure much.

  22. Put a mute button on your mouse by gmiller123456 · · Score: 1

    I've had a button on my mouse mapped to "mute" for many years now, and I think it's the single beat customization that can be done. If you just opened a link, odds are your hand is on the mouse, as soon as you hear anything it's muted in a tiny fraction of a second. It works particularly well to avoid hearing Youtube ads.

    Unfortunatley I haven't found anything as fast for mobile yet.

  23. Fuck you CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and your auto play