Firefox Bug 111373 - don't allow animated site icons
bugzilla.mozilla.org
bugzilla.mozilla.org
I think such notifications is not what this ticket is about. Not just because technically in this use case favicon is replaced, not animated.
The ticket IMHO is about favicons which constantly move.
In any case, if I don't like a web site (its favicon, or the content) I don't use it; I personally don't see the anymated favicons as a serious problem and wouldn't spend any hour of my time working on it. Moreover we don't have right to demand it from FireFox team.
Although I understand the author of this post, I sometimes feel annoyed by certain features or problems in software too. Give it some time, and you will forget about it :)
http://www.ghacks.net/2015/06/11/finally-mozilla-adds-workin...
Low priority issues can sometimes linger around for a very long time taking away precious focus of developers and creating distractions from adding real-value-features.
I find it pretty distracting having anything in my browser titles animated, just catches your eye now and then and breaks my train of thought.
A bit like the annoying ripple effect on buttons and hovers in Google's material, it's excess visual clutter that my brain, at least, decides it needs to pay attention to.
I'm not saying it's super important, but I also don't find it useless. I'm all for 60/120 fps favicons, even if I had to set a config flag to enable them.
With a userbase of precisely one, I can do whatever I want. :-)
https://gist.githack.com/hraban/e669edce68fbb9cd004b/raw/5f8...
(essentially: $('link[rel=icon]')[0].href='...';)
Because that's kind of useful for a lot of sites. Then again, if you don't remove that, what's the use of banning gifs?
> Firefox's CPU usage from 21.6% to 2.8% by closing a single background tab
> with an animated favicon.
why does it use so much CPU ? Something is not optimised here, it should be a lot less.
It's why I stopped using thunderbird, and mostly gave up on mozilla products. Here we are, about 14 years later.
I hear it's better these days, but I'm so tied to sylpheed-claws now that I don't have a reason to try it again.
There are bugs opened for 10 years that are infuriating though, like https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=307089
Given that in the setting of that bug report the user has explicitly instructed the browser to not store anything anywhere, and that you don't like the third option (the current behavior), I assume your proposed solution is to put up some sort of error message instead of showing the source in this situation?
The key part here is that this bug report is about a situation in which the user explicitly changes the browser's default settings to not store stuff. And then the browser ... doesn't store stuff. Shocking, I know.
Or rather: you can simulate animated gifs with dynamically setting the favicon. And as such blocking animated gifs wouldn't do anything beyond driving people to use JS to animate them instead.
So, realistically, either block both, block dynamically setting it but allow animated gifs, or keep both. But blocking animated gifs but allowing people to dynamically set it won't do much of anything.
Personally, I'm for blocking animated gifs (or rather, making it a config option), and throttling dynamically setting the favicon (like how FF already throttles background JS events). Unfortunately, given FF's push towards no options, I very much doubt it's going to happen.
To me what you're saying is equivalent to saying that we should never discuss anything.
Something's wrong with the society? If you don't like it, you can just move to a different country.
How can we possibly improve anything with that mindset?
I know that I'm overreacting here, but I would genuenly like to here comments about that.
I can stop going to a website or a store because of many reasons without impacting anyone around me and getting the same result of not being botherd by them. That is not an option regarding where I live. No I can not just move, it is not that simple.
> I know that I'm overreacting here, but I would genuenly like to here comments about that.
It would seem you likely already know the answer.
Edit: And most importantly, I think the site developers/designers/whatever should be free to do anything they want that is technically possible, that isn't a security threat. Funny thing is that I saw an animated favicon this morning,and remembered this thread.
IMHO the web sites trying to abuse their visitors by showing animated favicons should be banned from Internet. And of course I am not going to visit such a web site myself.
Different opinions doesn't mean that one group is right and one is wrong. I don't want to live in a cookie cutter society. I'd rather everybody have their own space to do what they want without harming others.
Still, if you're gonna do some shaming, pick something serious, there are some serious things to pick form iirc.
When chrome developers make closed source tools for flash that's fine, "It's all about business and they're a private corporation who can do what they want" but whenever the FF devs make any decision about anything they get criticized, and most of the people doing the criticisms are chrome users and people who swear by chrome for web development, but they seem to be the same people who completely ignore other web browsers as if chrome is all that matters. Back in the day we had to target all major browsers, now there's a group of people who have a major hard-on for chrome and don't give a shit about any other ecosystem and for some reason they think they're "good" programmers.