- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:32:38 +0100
- To: public-sustyweb@w3.org
I discovered the current mailing list when trying to work out where would have been a better home for this, technically off topic, thread on the www-html mailing list <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2013Jun/0000.html>. The thread is pitched in terms of the energy costs of animations, and, includes a couple of references to papers giving quantitative energy costs for animations and video advertising, although only the client side component of the costs. Even though www-html is essentially dead (bypassed by WHATWG) it produced supportive responses from from three or four people, as well as one person who didn't believe the premise, and another who repeatedly complained that it was off charter and particularly seemed to object to social responsibility content on a nominally technical list. (It is off charter there.) It's actual pitch is slightly off charter for sustyweb, as it is pitched in terms of what browser developers should do. In practice, I don't think there is any good channel to reach those, but I suspect that sustyweb's aims are slightly broader than its official, content authoring only, charter. In any case the energy cost statistics are relevant to authors. The only other relevant list would have been the Network Friendly one, but that is about battery lifetimes and mobile network bandwidth limitations, not about natural resource usage. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Sunday, 16 June 2013 11:33:05 UTC