51–60 of 139 posts
This is an interesting technique for stills; I'd be curious to see it applied to video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyAkgS6Xl1Q
Here's one someone else did: https://vimeo.com/210854333
I prefer something very subtle to show that there is an image that is supposed to be there. If it is going to show a single color rectangle, I prefer it be translucent so as to attract even less attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The nice thing about a lot of these SVG options (or even the smaller images as well), is that they can be embedded into pages That's a good point. Though presumably you could embed FLIF data into HTML using a data URI - https://css-tricks.com/data-uris/
Can a data uri be used to store 10% of a file in HTML, but then get the rest of a file? I mean you don't want to include the whole file.
Maybe you could use something like `srcset` to say "and also load the higher-quality verion from the server"? https://responsiveimages.org/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope the same. I love what people can do with vectorization, but personally, I'd be happier if there was an established standard for previewing content. As it is, a lot of previews don't work for users who don't trust the site enough to enable JavaScript.
If you've got JS turned off, isn't lack of image previews about the smallest issue you'll face?
- Sites which should work perfectly but don't work at all (e.g. Blogger). These are so annoying because serving text & images is exactly what the web is good at, and requiring JavaScript to do it is just abusive and borderline evil.
- Sites which work perfectly fine, except that all the images are blurry, low-res placeholders. These are so annoying because they're actually serving images. Their developers know how to do the right thing, but obstinately refuse to do so.
- Sites where small things don't work. They are annoying, but at least one can read them. Ars Technica gets a special mention for the fact that its articles are perfectly readable but the comments are not. I chalk this up to incompetence and laziness.
- Single page apps which really need to be single-page apps. They're annoying because they would almost certainly be better as native apps, but they really are doing something that the static web can't do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope the same. I love what people can do with vectorization, but personally, I'd be happier if there was an established standard for previewing content. As it is, a lot of previews don't work for users who don't trust the site enough to enable JavaScript.
If you've got JS turned off, isn't lack of image previews about the smallest issue you'll face?
For reading articles composed of just pictures and text on random websites, running code is not (shouldn't be) really necessary. In this light, lack of images is a big problem: the user is forced to choose between not seeing half the content or running untrusted code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you've got JS turned off, isn't lack of image previews about the smallest issue you'll face?
Not really; it's actually one of the biggest ones. There are several categories of sites which fail due to reliance on JavaScript: - Sites which should work perfectly but don't work at all (e.g. Blogger). These are so annoying because serving text & images is exactly what the web is good at, and requiring JavaScript to do it is just abusive and borderline evil. - Sites which work perfectly fine, except that all the i…
.comments-row { display: inherit; }
Seeing that it's such a small change, it really makes me wonder why they don't already include it.
It doesn't need it, folks. It's a static blog page.
I'd like to see some analysis of the psychological side of this. I'm not convinced these sorts of previews/placeholders are a positive thing, I find most of them rather distracting. The SVG approach is fine as a novelty, but to assume that this is the best approach from a user point of view is quite a big assumption. My intuition is that the hard edges of SVG are more distracting (attracting your eyes to something th…
Aside from my anecdote, there are many blog posts and experiment results out there that suggests that this works, and it works well.
Am I the only person who finds it ironic that a web page about keeping web pages small comes with multiple megabytes of Javascript? It doesn't need it, folks. It's a static blog page.