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

Echoing @hober's thoughts, I also think an opt-in would end up ignored by browsers down the line. Given that the vast majority of sites will not declare anything, browsers need to be able to treat this as ok to throttle. Throttling on low battery is the common case, and declaring that you *don't* want it for some reason is the exception, so the Web platform feature should reflect that to be useful. Have you considered an opt-out instead, where websites can declare that it is important *not* to throttle certain operations? 

I'm missing a more extensive list of operations beyond the two used as examples in the explainer (reduced framerate and reduced script speed). Are these the only ones?

The explainer mentions a `reduced-framerate` media query (as `@reduced-framerate`, which I assume is a typo? A media query would be `@media (reduced-framerate)`). This seems a bit too low-level and lacks flexibility. For example, if UAs start conserving battery in different ways in the future, does the MQ stop applying? Are there use cases where you want to handle specific throttling operations differently, or do authors really just need to know that battery savings mode is active? Perhaps a more general `@media (energy-savings)` media query would be more broadly useful?

-- 
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-762722247