W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: requestAnimationFrame

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:10:22 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=yGkEz9u4eDvrS6=wSLzG=srKzNfv6QUOeznBd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: "Gregg Tavares (wrk)" <gman@google.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
> * Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote:
>>There is plenty of flash content that has a lower than 60hz (or fast as
>>possible) refresh rate. When something is instead implementing in HTML5
>>instead of Flash what should they do to get the similar results? Checking
>>cnn.com, time.com, arstechnica.com, wired.com and msnbc.com I found that 7
>>ads were set to run at 18hz, 3 were set to run at 24hz, 2 were set to run at
>>30hz. I used SWF
>>Info<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/45361/>to check
>>the fps setting. I have no idea why they don't choose "run as fast
>>as possible." I could be laziness, it could be that it makes the pages too
>>slow and unresponsive to set them to "as fast as possible", it could be that
>>rendering 3 times more then necessary, 60hz vs 18hz would eat battery
>>life, it could be an artistic choice, it could be just that flash makes you
>>pick one vs defaulting to "fast as possible".
> The frame rate is a number in the swf header that cannot be set to a "as
> fast as possible" value.

Ah, so that also means that different animations can't run with
different frame rates?

Maybe having a global property which defines the maximum frame rate
for all animations on the page would be enough then? Though it'll give
ads and their embedders a fun property to fight over.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2010 01:11:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:13 UTC