Re: The ability to turn off animations in browsers

Hidv=C3=A9gi G=C3=A1bor wrote:
> Hey, I have just found a pdf about advertisements energy consumption - =

> made by a dutch university -, which is not 100% relevant, but you can=20
> get the picture:
> http://eprints.eemcs.utwente.nl/18066/01/Hidden-Energy-Costs.pdf
>=20

The problem with this proposal is that very few end user will go to the=20
trouble of using this feature, or even be aware of it.  That's already a =

problem with accessibility and security features.  As the advertisers=20
fund the web industry, there will be strong pressures to not enable it=20
by default.

If there is some take up, there will be pressure on site designers to=20
design sites in such a way that the editorial is not really usable with=20
the feature enabled; that is something that, for example, makes elective =

decisions to block scripting, for security reasons, unworkable in practic=
e.

Don't get me wrong, I do think it would be a desirable feature, but, if=20
implemented, it is likely to end up on an advanced options tab, where=20
only <1% of users enable it, and its usability will erode with time.

You might want to note that, quite a few years ago, the main focus of=20
HTML discussion moved to a much more commercial wants oriented, non-W3C, =

mailing list, where support for animation was one of the main wants.=20
The www-html list probably has a disproportionate number of people who=20
still believe in the concepts like the semantic web, and the original=20
divergence in the design philosophy of HTML from the state of computer=20
mediated advertising at the time.

--=20
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.