[Webkit-unassigned] [Bug 165694] Consider throttling requestAnimationFrame in cross-origin iframes

[bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org]

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165694

mdrejhon <mark at blurbusters.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mark at blurbusters.com

--- Comment #3 from mdrejhon <mark at blurbusters.com> ---

There is a known side effect.
An additional consideration is EMBED animations.  

For example, a monitor review (BlurBusters GSYNC Preview #1) on one website embeds a 30fps-versus-60fps animations as well as VRR animations (TestUFO Stutter animation).   

Example 30fps-versus-60fps animation: http://www.testufo.com
Example EMBED of above animation: http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=143&p=1124

If throttling to 30fps, then the convenience of embedding scientific TestUFO animations (e.g. www.testufo.com/eyetracking and others) becomes inaccurate.  This is used very frequently by certain types of websites, including mine (BlurBusters/TestUFO).

Just like some websites embed 60fps YouTube videos, there are now some websites that embed intentional-60fps animations (e.g. 30fps versus 60fps animations).  There is also a 120fps-versus-60fps-versus-30fps animation that works in Chrome and FireFox, and it also works embedded.

(On the 120Hz requestAnimationFrame topic, see https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=173434 ...)

The throttle idea may be well-intended rationale, probably is the worry of advertisements eating up battery power. While a solution could be warranted, a blanket browser-engine decision to throttle animations has unintended consequences.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-unassigned/attachments/20170618/669256c7/attachment.html>