Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Web page settings to save battery (#546)

> @khushalsagar @chrishtr we are just picking this up again in our virtual f2f. We have some additional comments which Ken will write in. Additionally can you let us know the current status on this on your end?

The current status is that we have an origin trial ongoing, with participation from Google Meet in particular. They have observed substantial battery life savings due to the trial. In parallel with the trial, there has been experimentation within Chromium to see if there are tricks and optimizations within the compositor, combined with measures on the website that intentionally throttle CSS animations via step annotations, that can result in a similar savings. So far it looks like the answer might be yes, at least for the specific workload in Google Meet. Other video conferencing sites are considering and/or also participating in the trial.

I'm concerned that these solutions are brittle, and there needs to be a more explicit way to indicate that "60fps CSS animations are not necessary on this site if they impact battery", which would allow these sites to not have to carefully audit and control their CSS animations, and leave it up to the browser to find ways to do so, e.g. by throttling the animations or synchronizing their compositor frames with video textures.

> There seems to be some privacy & security considerations of this idea that need to be spelled out. Could I ask you to fill out the [privacy & security self check](https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/) and include a privacy & security considerations section in the explainer? Can you also let us know what the planned _venue_ for this is? Is this destined for WICG? Will it potentially go to the devices & sensors working group? Can you let us know about any multi-implementer interest or support?

This TAG review was of the "early review" variety that comes at the Intent to Implement / Intent to Experiment stage of the Blink feature process (maybe we need to revise our process to indicate that more clearly?).

If and when we proceed further with the standards process, I agree there need to be reviews of any privacy and/or security concerns.

If/when we want to proceed further with this proposal, yes it'd be WICG + WebPerfWG I think.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/546#issuecomment-775365986