Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewstuart | Hacker News Reader

All the other major browsers allow this but Firefox does not.

https://caniuse.com/mdn-api_htmlvideoelement_disablepicturei...

So annoying because I should be able to create a user interface with animated UI made of videos, not animated GIFs.

There are many more valid use cases for disablePictureInPicture in the bugzilla thread https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1611831

Annoying.

View on HN

There was a lot examples but the main complaint seemed to be a rephrased "We don't want users to be able to do that". Perhaps I missed a valid use case but, this seems a lot like wanting to disable rightclick (and giving a dubious reason why).

Mozilla is right.

As I said, video is a valid replacement for animated GIFs - why should this have a picture in picture icon over it?

if it is shorter than 45 sec the pip option doesn't appear most gifs aren't that long so video can still be a replacement

The video component does not always know how long a video is.

It sounds like you've identified the actual problem you need to fix. Why shouldn't the browser know how long a couple of short video files are?

Also, if the video files don't have an audio track, you shouldn't get a PIP control. Why do these GIF-replacement videos have an audio track? I believe (but have not tested) that adding the `muted` attribute to the `<video>` element will have the same effect as removing the audio track from the video files themselves.

It's not the same thing at all, because the PiP actually breaks things in a casual way, whereas right-click doesn't. Of course anyone can break anything with the inspector or user CSS, but that's also hard to do so that's fine.

The core problem is that for some applications the video is inextricably linked to some other content on the page and just makes no sense on its own, but Firefox always treats the video as its own content. Often that's fine. Sometimes it's not.

It's not even per-site. If you use SiteX where PiP is problematic then you can't even disable it just for that site but have to disable it globally.

I don't see how the user of SiteX is served by any of this.

Just completely Independent if this issue. I think "others do this so you are bad if you not follow" argument is childish and stupid, but it will never go away.

All the others are jumping out the window into the fire, FOLLOW THEM!"

Were you here for the hellish days of when all browsers were incompatible?

If you want compatibility, you should be lobbying other browsers follow suit - not ask Mozilla to gut a pro-user feature.

All the other browser permit you to override the user. They are not user's agents anymore, are they?

Not just that. All these anti-user demands are justified in the name of 'user-experience' or similar non-sequitur.

Why should a website get to choose how content is consumed

So CSS should just be removed entirely... after all, why should a website get to choose how I consume it?

Uh, you mean CSS overrides? Or are you purposely being silly?

The website can offer their CSS, and I can load my CSS (greasemonkey scripts) to override it. They have the choice and so do I.

The argument is "why should a website have the ability to block me from what I am doing to the content they give me"

Why should a website limit what I do?

You don't even need grease monkey. Allowing the user to override css is a staple design feature.

https://www.itsupportguides.com/knowledge-base/computer-acce...

Greatmonkey makes it easier to do per site though and also supports injecting JavaScript

Don’t be silly. You know any website can just use a canvas to show text and it’d be over. I wanna know how well your CSS overrides work on Google Docs and Google Maps.

Users lost that fight when CSS was introduced. I wish the web was just pure content, but it’s not.

Google docs you say?

Haven't tried this myself, but this claims "distraction free writing" and "dark mode" for google docs.. lots of CSS with some JS sprinkled in... https://gist.github.com/TwistedSnakes/6eeb1590bffc67adbe8e78...

Good job missing my point entirely

They can't "just use" canvas as that's a lot of extra work (and still not a perfect substitute)

Also not clear how users lost the fight with CSS when the lack of control is due to canvas

Google docs, maps, etc.. are sites.

You can choose not to go to them. Use open street map, or whatever.

A browser has more control over what you use.

And even yet, when all browsers follow the same standard, you have even less "control" - the standards should be for users

You can personalize the CSS of any website with extensions. The correct comparison here would be talking about disabling the capability to do this.

User's can disable or modify CSS whenever and however they want :)

"Developers can opt to exclude the Picture-in-Picture button from videos hosted on their domains and inform users that the Picture-in-Picture experience might not be the best fit for their website. In such cases, Firefox will display a notification indicating that Picture-in-Picture is not recommended for that particular website. However, you retain full control and can override this recommendation by activating the Enable anyway option. This empowers you to choose to use Picture-in-Picture, even if the developer discourages it." This is at the bottom of the Mozilla KB article about PiP, and I'm just assuming that this was added after this bug was created. Unless a brief pop up telling people they are allowed to turn it back on is THAT horrible, I don't get why this wouldn't work for you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com