W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2013

[whatwg] srcset, src-N and a radically different proposal

From: pghj <pghjvanblokland@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 23:34:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CALOJz9F9Yj09FtwmhdcTT23D-u1WOO1VuzwkoBq5E=VfrUrX_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: whatwg@whatwg.org
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Some comments on srcset and src-N, and a radically different proposal.

ART-DIRECTION

First, I don't think the Art-direction issue should be solved at <img>
level, because it's only a partial solution and replicates a feature
already provided by CSS. For example, providing a less detailed image might
very well require a change in accompanying text as well:

<div class='desktop'>
<img src='moredetail.jpg'> the red arrows indicate your troop movements
</div>
<div class='mobile'>
<img src='lessdetail.jpg'> click on the image to view details
</div>

...where a stylesheet hides one of either representations.

I'd personally rather leave Art-direction in the CSS domain as a
one-size-fits-all solution, even if it concerns just images.

The same argument applies to the use case "matching media features and
media types" (http://usecases.responsiveimages.org)

In short: different image, different <img> element.

( "but this makes the preload scanner fetch both images" : read on! )



RESOLUTION-SIZE-DISCRIMINATION

Moving on to resolution/size discrimination: I don't like either the srcset
nor the src-N approach because they pull in things that belong in
stylesheets and would better be left there.

As I see it, the complexity of src-N (and to lesser extend srcset) derives
from the attempt to feed preload scanners with partial style information
that would otherwise only become available at a later stage.

As Maciej Stachowiak puts it, "the fundamental thing that's missing is
ability to have one of several images correctly selected by the browser at
preload time"

True, but how important is this, really? Measurements show a ~20% speed
increase when a preload scanner is enabled, but how much of that can be
attributed to preloading images from <img> tags? More importantly, does
preloading these images help with perceived speed? I'd say not much: often
most of them are outside the visible area, make up only a small surface
relative to the whole page, and the page renders fine before they are
loaded, especially when the dimensions are known through attributes or CSS.
Preloading them can actually delay the loading of more important images
from CSS, which does degrade the perceived speed very much.

In fact, many efforts are made to bypass the preload scanner to avoid
loading images before they are scrolled into view, to increase speed,
conserve bandwidth, or both.

Also, as a matter of principle, I don't think it is desirable that
optimizations in today's browsers justify extending the html specification
with constructs as complicated as src-N. A speed increase of 20% is not
that much after all, and is probably nil on modern websites optimized for
load-time using asynchronous scripts.

Therefore, under the assumption that the importance of a preload scanner is
overrated with respect to <img> images, I would like to propose the
following alternative approach:



PROPOSAL

For responsive images, we forsake any (real or imagined) benefits from the
preload scanner, and instead of elaborate schemes to add media-query-like
functionality to the <img> element, we just give the browser all the
information we have on image candidates, and let it figure things out for
itself. Example:

<img src="default.jpg" srcalt="default.jpg 200x150 10kB, small.jpg 100x75
4kB, large.jpg 400x300 16kB"/>

With this information, the browser can decide (after initial layout), based
on user preferences about quality, loading-time, and bandwidth
conservation, which image best suits its needs.

The exact syntax is of course open to discussion: I just wanted to put
forward the general idea.

Pros:
* very easy to write and understand
* very compact
* avoids complexity
* very good opportunity for quality/speed/bandwidth trade-offs
* doesn't turn HTML ugly (at least far less than other proposals)
* no preload scanner

Cons (maybe):
* no preload scanner

There are some interesting variations possible to this approach. In the
following example, only the alternative sources are enumerated, but not
their properties:

<img src="default.jpg" srcalt="small.jpg large.jpg"/>

In this case, the browser could make a series of pipelined HEAD requests on
these sources, and the server would report the size (through
Content-Length) and image dimensions (through a specialised response
header) for each image. This would eliminate the dependency of HTML-source
on properties of these images, or knowledge of them during page generation,
which some might find preferable.


Thank you for reading!

Josh
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 22:34:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:14 UTC