- From: Hidvégi Gábor <gabor@hidvegi.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:22:35 +0200
- To: <www-html@w3.org>
The browser vendors could also benefit from this ability. Last week I read this article which gave me the idea: http://blogs.windows.com/ie/b/ie/archive/2013/06/05/internet-explorer-10-is-the-most-energy-efficient-browser-on-windows-8.aspx Many people care about the environment, just think about the ones who buy electric/hybrid cars; turning off animations would only need a few clicks/taps. The first browser vendor who could define its product as "green" would be a great opportunity. For example Mozilla / phone operators could turn this feature on by default on their low cost/slow hardware mobile devices to offer even more power. Gábor Hidvégi ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Woolley" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk> To: <www-html@w3.org> Cc: "Hidvégi Gábor" <gabor@hidvegi.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:21 AM Subject: Re: The ability to turn off animations in browsers > David Woolley wrote: > >> attention of jaded users, at a time when hardware is getting better and >> better at power management. Low end gaming GPUs can have a power >> consumption change of 60 watts between a static picture and maximum >> animation, and CPUs may also vary by about that much. >> > > Some more subtle ways in which they increase power consumption is that > they force the continual updating of PCs to more powerful ones, which > means that the baseline power consumption tends to stay the same, rather > than taking advantage of increases in the processing power to electrical > power ratio and actually results in higher peak power consumptions. Also > there is an energy cost (which could exceed the running cost) in the > manufacturing of the ever more powerful PCs needed to continue to obtain > the same quality of editorial content. > > -- > David Woolley > Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. > RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, > that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work. > >
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 08:23:00 UTC