> There's no way to disable Lazy Loading on […] Android Firefox. about:config dom.image-lazy-loading.enabled
Thank you!
I think I kind of hate lazy loading
91–100 of 182 posts
Re: I think I kind of hate lazy loading
#92Hardly any app is designed for subway riders. If they were, we'd have widespread preloading (like half an hour of tweets pre-loaded), seamless delayed posting (sending a new post when the internet comes back online), and visibility into what's downloading and uploading so users can make informed choices. As with all accessibility affordances, this will help people beyond the targeted group - like air travelers, folks…
If you have Youtube's paid version, you can have the app automatically preload content it thinks you'd like.
This has saved my ass plenty of times when my ADHD brain needed content in places where I didn't have internet.
Re: I think I kind of hate lazy loading
#93I hate it soooo much. I've got Gigabit Internet and it makes it feel like I'm back on dialup waiting for images to load as I scroll rather than having the page ready for me.
[deleted]
Re: I think I kind of hate lazy loading
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you’ve probably just not worked on pages of that scale so far. Some very large sites maintain alternate versions of images in chance the browser supports something more efficient than JPEG; that can save about 30% – at the expense of a lot of complexity and extra server side storage. Yet they still do it: It’s still worth it for them. But nothing beats not loading the image at all! As a web user, I personally al…
Most content-heavy media sites make use of CDNs, and the expenses involved are generally reasonable. It's unlikely that a slightly heavier image would have a significant impact on their costs. I think this might be more of a well-intentioned effort to help end-users save on bandwidth, but it could lead to a bad experience as OP pointed out in their blog post.
CDN storage costs are actually very high, only large websites that basically run their own CDNs storage many different versions of the image to optimize for bandwidth.
The company I worked for did, but they didn't pay for a CDN, just loaded everything from one server
Re: I think I kind of hate lazy loading
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even with encrypted DNS, the unencrypted host name is usually part of the TLS handshake (or the server wouldn’t know what certificate to present to you).
But you also usually keep the connection alive for multiple requests.
To the same host though, so that doesn’t really help with privacy, no?
Re: I think I kind of hate lazy loading
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you’ve probably just not worked on pages of that scale so far. Some very large sites maintain alternate versions of images in chance the browser supports something more efficient than JPEG; that can save about 30% – at the expense of a lot of complexity and extra server side storage. Yet they still do it: It’s still worth it for them. But nothing beats not loading the image at all! As a web user, I personally al…
Most content-heavy media sites make use of CDNs, and the expenses involved are generally reasonable. It's unlikely that a slightly heavier image would have a significant impact on their costs. I think this might be more of a well-intentioned effort to help end-users save on bandwidth, but it could lead to a bad experience as OP pointed out in their blog post.
Unlike self-hosting, CDNs (and many cloud computing services) are typically paid by the byte of outbound traffic, so sending 30% less per image often results in a direct 30% savings!
Re: I think I kind of hate lazy loading
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you’ve probably just not worked on pages of that scale so far. Some very large sites maintain alternate versions of images in chance the browser supports something more efficient than JPEG; that can save about 30% – at the expense of a lot of complexity and extra server side storage. Yet they still do it: It’s still worth it for them. But nothing beats not loading the image at all! As a web user, I personally al…
If only we could progressively enhance a page rather than stunt them via lazy loading.
That would require a new browser feature or image metadata tag that indicates “load only until here if not visible”, right?
Or do you mean web developers should manually swap assets based on visibility, rather than make a binary load/don’t load decision?
Re: I think I kind of hate lazy loading
#98I live in Germany and so do most of my users, so I take the spotty internet rather seriously. There are lots of holes in the coverage even in the capital. Then there is the underground. However loading the images early wastes bandwidth, and it hurts SEO. In my case the user can live without those images, so it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. I hope that descriptive alt tags will help. On the other hand, the whole…
it hurts SEO. In my case the user can live without those images, so it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. This is one of the big problems with the modern web, It puts you in this doom loop: sacrifice the user to please Google to get users.
The performance metrics in pagespeed/lighthouse etc. are not really assessing performance directly.
You can have a slow, bloated website but great metrics, because you’re doing the “right” things.
However lazy loading images that are not on screen is generally a good thing. Images are typically the heaviest part of a website and loading them only when needed is good.
The article in question acknowledges that, but is criticizing the implementation and failure mode.
Re: I think I kind of hate lazy loading
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Image-wise, isn't GIF capable of that? I remember back in the dialup days some image type would be quickly visible but very pixelated, then slowly get more detail as more of the image downloaded.
The JPEG standard includes an option for displaying images progressively so that you see large blocks of color that continue to refine into more pixels as the image downloads. In the mid 90's on a 14.4K modem you had plenty of time to watch this happen. I miss the effect, but fortunately most connections are now fast enough where the intermediate step wouldn't be noticeable for a single image.
That doesn’t help today though (at least not without additional mechanisms): Each individual internet connection is often fast enough, and actually used bandwidth is more of a concern than saturating an individual connection.
Re: I think I kind of hate lazy loading
#100> There's no way to disable Lazy Loading on […] Android Firefox. about:config dom.image-lazy-loading.enabled
That doesn't work on the Android version of Firefox. It goes to a blank page with no settings.
See https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/firefox-for-android-abo...