W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2016

Re: [whatwg] Media query for bandwidth ??

From: Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 16:19:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CANCFA+FEYSw1vUkNqk4+HVfAABfjPG2DSmD1QKot5ku8kSsAEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yay295 <yay295@gmail.com>, Jonathan Zuckerman <j.zuckerman@gmail.com>
Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, "Michael A. Peters" <mpeters@domblogger.net>
So, if this were to get in it is magically up to users to know to go change
the settings (most don't) to get different modes. That is bad design. We
need to handle things for users in this situation. Not do something and
hope they pay attention.

If you're suggesting a feature that requires browser settings explicit for
it, rethink it.

JavaScript handling let's you do exactly what you want. Let the most
performance oriented solution be your default and enhance on top of that
after load. There are other things coming for fonts, like the font loading
API, to help make funny transitioning seamless.

Browsers are handling things like data saver modes to let users opt in to
certain things on their end. Overall, introducing media queries based on
the network is a bad design.

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016, 11:09 AM Yay295 <yay295@gmail.com> wrote:

> On another note, are you sure it's *font files* that are slowing down your
> page load? Maybe I've just been lucky, but of the 24 font files I happen to
> have in a folder on my computer, 19 of them are only about 50KB. That's
> one-fifth the size of jQuery. Perhaps you should be looking at shrinking
> your font files first if they're such a problem?
>
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Jonathan Zuckerman <j.zuckerman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Michael - I think "high" and "low" are very relative terms, defining
> those
> > terms for all users for all time doesn't seem possible. Also,
> > connectivity/bandwidth are subject to change at any moment during the
> > lifetime of a page. Current media queries like `max-height` or
> > `min-resolution` would respond to changes, have you thought about how
> your
> > proposed addition would behave?
> >
> > Currently you can use javascript to figure out if the network will
> support
> > your enhanced experience (and you're free to define what that means) and
> > add a classname to the document to trigger the css rules for that
> > experience, so you can build the feature you're asking for using existing
> > parts. It's not baked into the platform, but because of the nature of the
> > web and vagueness of the requirements, I'm not sure it's possible to do
> any
> > better.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:07 AM Michael A. Peters <mpeters@domblogger.net
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This was inspired by inspection of a style-sheet in the wild that uses
> > > screen-width to try and reduce bandwidth needs of mobile devices.
> > >
> > > I like the concept, but very often I use my mobile devices where
> > > bandwidth doesn't matter and my laptop via a mifi where bandwidth does
> > > matter.
> > >
> > > I would like a CSS media query for bandwidth so that I can reduce how
> > > many webfonts are used in low bandwidth scenarios. It seems browsers
> are
> > > already smart enough to only download a font defined by @font-face if
> > > they need it, so it only needs to be done where the font is used, e.g.
> > >
> > > pre {
> > >    font-family: 'monoFont-Roman', monospace;
> > > }
> > > pre em {
> > >    font-family: 'monoFont-Italic', monospace;
> > >    font-style: normal;
> > > }
> > > pre strong {
> > >    font-family: 'monoFont-Bold', monospace;
> > >    font-weight: normal;
> > > }
> > > pre em strong {
> > >    font-family: 'monoFont-BoldItalic', monospace;
> > >    font-style: normal;
> > >    font-weight: normal;
> > > }
> > > pre strong em {
> > >    font-family: 'monoFont-BoldItalic', monospace;
> > >    font-style: normal;
> > >    font-weight: normal;
> > > }
> > > @media screen and (device-bandwidth: low) {
> > >    pre strong {
> > >      font-family: 'monoFont-Roman', monospace;
> > >      font-weight: 700;
> > >    }
> > >    pre em strong {
> > >      font-family: 'monoFont-Italic', monospace;
> > >      font-weight: 700;
> > >    }
> > >    pre strong em {
> > >      font-family: 'monoFont-Italic', monospace;
> > >      font-weight: 700;
> > >    }
> > > }
> > >
> > > That right there cuts the number of fonts the low-bandwidth device
> needs
> > > in half, and could have even gone further and used fake italic if the
> > > fake italic for the font looks good enough.
> > >
> > > The small increase in CSS file size doesn't matter with high bandwidth
> > > clients and is justified for low-bandwidth as it reduces the content
> > > that needs to be fetched.
> > >
> > > It would be up to the client to define the device-bandwidth, web
> > > developers should create the CSS for high bandwidth and only have the
> > > alternate CSS kick in when a media query says it is low.
> > >
> > > Honestly I think low or high are the only definitions needed with low
> > > being the only one that a site should have conditional styles set for.
> > >
> > > -=-
> > >
> > > The same concept could be applied to html5 media too. e.g. I could
> serve
> > > the 64 kbps opus to clients that don't define themselves as low, and
> the
> > > 32 kbps opus to clients that do define themselves as low.
> > >
> > > How to handle media in situations where a service worker pre-fetches
> > > content I haven't thought about, because a client may pre-fetch content
> > > before the bandwidth constraint changes, but I suspect there's a clever
> > > solution to that (e.g. always fetch high bandwidth when async pre-fetch
> > > and then use high bandwidth when cached even if in low bandwidth mode)
> > >
> > > But html5 media can be figured out later, CSS is what I really would
> > > like to see a bandwidth media query for.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> >
>
Received on Friday, 9 December 2016 16:20:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:40 UTC