[Webkit-unassigned] [Bug 239961] <video> poster attribute allows another video

[bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org]

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=239961

--- Comment #4 from Jeff Johnson <opendarwin at lapcatsoftware.com> ---
(In reply to Eric Carlson from comment #3)
> (In reply to Sam Sneddon [:gsnedders] from comment #2)
> > There's two things here, I think:
> > 
> > 1. Should a video be allowed a poster as a poster? (Which Dean mentioned on
> > https://github.com/WebKit/explainers/issues/79!)
> > 
> 
> Safari, Firefox, and Chrome all allow animated .gif files as a <video>
> poster. From the user's perspective, what's the difference?

None. I wasn't aware that a poster frame would animate, but I've just confirmed this in testing.


> Only Safari allows a video file as a poster, but only WebKit allows a video
> file to be used as the source for an <img> element.

I definitely wasn't aware of this.


> > 2. The poster video not obeying the site auto-play preference.
> > 
> 
> Should an animated <img> also respect the user's auto-play preference?

Yes, absolutely. So many users are already annoyed by auto-playing animated gifs, it's astonishing that browser vendors haven't done anything to stop this. The fact that video files can be smaller in size and more efficient than gifs will just encourage web developers to abuse the capability.

Seriously, if Safari shipped click-to-play animated gifs, you might get more public praise than you've ever heard in your life.

-- 
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/20220504/5f19103b/attachment.htm>