Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Native Responsive Images

dev.opera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: Native Responsive Images

#21

Post by yoavweiss_ »

crazygringo wrote: post #4

For things like retina-aware images, e.g.: src="cat_500px.jpg" srcset="cat_750px.jpg 1.5x, cat_1000px.jpg 2x" Does anyone know if the browser will download a higher-res image once the user zooms in? E.g., in Chrome on OSX, if I zoom from 100% to 130% on a non-Retina display, will it download the 1.5x version and downsample it? Likewise, in iOS, if the initial zoom setting is "zoomed out", and "retina" is almost meani…

The browser can do whatever it wants (read: whatever's best for users) in this case. Current Blink (Chrome/Opera) code wouldn't download the higher res image for 'x' descriptors, but that may change in future versions, perhaps tied to user preferences,network info and other possible conditions.

Re: Native Responsive Images

#22

Post by yoavweiss_ »

asabil wrote: post #11

What about a proper image format with support for multiple resolutions? Similar to the way it's done in SVC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Video_Coding )

I looked into that in http://blog.yoav.ws/2012/05/Responsive-image-format

But image formats are hard, since they require an eco system, investment from large cos, etc. Maybe in a few years...

Re: Native Responsive Images

#23

Post by yoavweiss_ »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #19

> Unfortunately some browser vendors were reluctant to add new content negotiation-based solutions, because of past bad experience with this kind of solutions. Can anyone provide more details of what they're talking about? I'm actually not too interested in naming names of browser vendors (which they were trying to avoid clearly) -- I'm more interested in details of the 'bad experiences', what was it (some people) th…

The canonical link in that aspect is http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Why_not_conneg

There are various people in various vendors (Mostly Mozilla and Apple) that oppose conneg based solutions. I didn't mean to be vague, just didn't think it's very interesting :)

It's important to note that the opposition is not unanimous, and things may change in the future.

Re: Native Responsive Images

#24

Post by anselmh »

perlgeek wrote: post #17

Did I read that not carefully enough, or did the article really not explain what that "vw" unit is/stands for? And what does the "calc(33vw - 100px)" do, apparently in void context? Somehow I feel more confused after reading the article.

The `vw` unit is unrelated to responsive images but a new unit type that reflects the Viewport Width (100vw = 100% of browser’s viewport). There’s also a not so good supported vh unit, all specified under CSS Values and Units Module Level 3 (http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/).

The `calc()` function is a CSS function that lets you calculate values like 100vw - 100px, similar to what you can do in JavaScript. See more: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/calc

Re: Native Responsive Images

#25

Post by sorbits »

Goopplesoft wrote: post #20
sorbits wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would add unnecessary data overhead as clients would get image data they may not need, e.g. a low-resolution device would not want a high-DPI version of all images on the site.

Please read the wiki op linked. > A subset video bitstream is derived by dropping packets from the larger video to reduce the bandwidth required for the subset bitstream. The subset bitstream can represent a lower spatial resolution (smaller screen), lower temporal resolution (lower frame rate), or lower quality video signal.

Then we are not talking about an image format but instead a network protocol.

Inventing a new protocol if the problem can be solved by serving the proper markup, seems misguided.

Re: Native Responsive Images

#26

Post by jrochkind1 »

yoavweiss_ wrote: post #23
jrochkind1 wrote: post #19

> Unfortunately some browser vendors were reluctant to add new content negotiation-based solutions, because of past bad experience with this kind of solutions. Can anyone provide more details of what they're talking about? I'm actually not too interested in naming names of browser vendors (which they were trying to avoid clearly) -- I'm more interested in details of the 'bad experiences', what was it (some people) th…

The canonical link in that aspect is http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Why_not_conneg There are various people in various vendors (Mostly Mozilla and Apple) that oppose conneg based solutions. I didn't mean to be vague, just didn't think it's very interesting :) It's important to note that the opposition is not unanimous, and things may change in the future.

Thanks!

What's interesting to some is not to others. :) You could add a link to that doc from the relevant sentence if you wanted, woo, the web.

Re: Native Responsive Images

#27

Post by geuis »

markdown wrote: post #12
geuis wrote: post #3

Honestly, we're (collectively) never going to adopt this on a large scale. Everything I read in this article is just horribly complicated. I don't have a solution, but none of these are the right one. There's so much complexity going on that no developer will get it right without devoting a massive amount of time and effort just to load the "right" image at the "right" time. Honestly, I need to support retina screens…

> For non-retina screens getting a larger image doesn't really matter. Non retina mobile devices are rapidly disappearing. So therefore I'm comfortable delivering higher resolution images to all devices. Must be nice to only have big-city first-worlders as users :)

Yeah I hear ya. Literally just going based on our traffic numbers though. For the vast majority of our audience, this technique is just fine.
Post reply on HN