Ah, a script/plugin as a workaround? Maybe, but do the sites with animates favicons deserve so much attention? Do you know any useful web site with animated favicon?
I also hope FireFox would prevent HTML5 YouTube videos form autoplaying and autoloading. They will implement a such feature in the next version, but it doesn't seem to work properly now (It's beta, I know). And it's not clear to stop autoloading, either. Does anyone have a good idea to block autoplay and load HTML5 videos?
I think it would be possible to configure noscript to allow scripts, but require a click to play media (I haven't actually tried it like that, since I just keep almost all scripts blocked anyway).
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.
Toggl use a favicon animation to show when a timer is running or not, but it's as simple as red icon on, black icon off. More distractingly they also animated the title to show the timer, but thankfully there's now an option to disable that.
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.
1% or so and from my feeling that's way too many. If you haven't experienced them you don't know how f*n annoying it is to have a tab just outside of your vision range to always do something. You constantly move your attention there.
I've seen zero animated favicons. I'm wondering if it's a "feature" that doesn't work on Linux. The URL bar doesn't even display favicons anymore, although they show up without animation in bookmarks.
http://www.p01.org/releases/DEFENDER_of_the_favicon that somebody linked to shows that the animation does indeed work in the Linux version of Firefox. Weird that I've never seen one before, but now that I've seen it, I don't want to see another.
For an audio player I used it to display song progress, and if that wasn't so choppy I'd love to do actual audio visualization, too. And I just had an idea I will actually try: display website hits in the last 16 minutes or seconds while the tabs with the stats is open but not focused.
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.
And that's precisely why you shouldn't be using them. We developers are some of the worst people at understanding what's actually important and what's not to a user's workflow.
I assume you are that user-base... I upvoted and then had the horrible thought that you might be making your significant other wade through animated gifs before she can use your Intranet only coffee pot every morning.
It's more a sign that a lot of people have an opinion about it but none of those are sufficiently annoyed by the issue to actually fix the problem. There's way more work to go around than time available.
I wouldn't blame the Firefox team for not fixing it. It's not that they were doing nothing in the meantime. They actually have their hands full with more meaningful changes. When the web stops developing then they will probably have more time on doing this kind of fixes/changes.
I noticed recently that firefox no longer stops playing animated gifs when I press the <esc> key. This behavior change, which prevents me from stopping annoying animations, annoys me more than any favicon ever did.
I have my double-click speed set so high, I don't imagine I would ever run into that one. However, I stopped using thunderbird a decade ago when it corrupted my mailbox when my homedir ran out of space. Twice. From two different bugs.
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 is no magic. Either the browser stores the source somewhere or the browser refuses to show source or the browser refetches the source from the server when asked to show it.
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?
I suggest to do it like Chrome does, show me the source. Maybe it caches the original source, I don't know, but I can't imagine that's expensive (given all that Firefox caches on each tabs ...).
Caching the original source can in fact be pretty expensive in a lot of cases. Which is why Firefox tries to put it on disk, not in memory. But, again, if the user then explicitly turns that off, then Firefox doesn't do it.
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.
At my old job I made one for a client. Their logo would spin once a minute. I thought it was super neat. I guess it was kinda subtle compared to what's possible, it's still the only animated fav icon I've seen.
If a browser blocks animated favicons, I can see that blocking sites that dynamically update the favicon with a badge to show unread messages / new updates / etc.
Am I missing something or are a lot of people confusing animated favicons (animated gif as favicon, as per the linked article) with dynamically setting the favicon?
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.
One nice thing about Firefox is that you can turn off the display of favicons via about:config. This is nice as I personally find them to be annoying and unneeded.
Reminds me of block popup features (not necessarily solely in Firefox). Is it really that hard to prevent ANY new tabs or popups being opened by a page?
Not everything has to be dealt with the same way, and not everything exists as the same priority. Using or not using an annoying website doesn't come close to the effects that living in a society that touches every part of your life.
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.
A website is NOT a country. A website is more like a band, or a store. If a band plays music that annoys you, don't listen, if a store sells stuff you don't want, or has pushy sales guys, don't shop there.
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.
Your analogy with not discussing anything is incorrect.
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.
I think if people actually moved to a different country or state where they can find more like-minded people, things would be better all around.
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.
Yeah like the fact that chrome is just generally shitty. It takes 30 seconds to open and then uses half my RAM, but nah, lets hate on FF. OSS is such an easy target too, seeing as most communication is done out in the open.
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.
http://www.p01.org/releases/DEFENDER_of_the_favicon/