
Chrome 34: Responsive Images and Unprefixed Web Audio - uptown
http://blog.chromium.org/2014/02/chrome-34-responsive-images-and_9316.html
======
epmatsw
Interesting choice to ignore autocomplete=off. I am not sure how I feel about
that.

[https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/chromiu...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/chromium-
dev/zhhj7hCip5c/PxbtDtGbkV0J)

~~~
GauntletWizard
I've yet to find a time when autocomplete has been disabled that I've not
wanted to slap the web designer. Most every one has been on some sort of
common address form. My browser knows my address. I don't want to type it.
You'll get better results from my browser than from me typing, always.

~~~
voltagex_
Credit card number fields?

~~~
ChristianBundy
My browser can type my credit card information faster than I can.

Honestly, `autocomplete=off` is an unwelcome attempt to try to save me from
myself.

~~~
jmathai
I always thought of `autocomplete=off` to guard shared computers. I've turned
it off for CC fields but the intention is that if you're on a shared computer
the security outweighs the browser remembering something such as a credit card
number.

I don't believe people type values into a form realizing at the moment that
the browser is saving it for future uses.

------
PStamatiou
Does this only work for device resolution needs - ie, load an @2x version in
the same image width/height for 2x hi dpi displays? Versus progressively
download larger images the more the user widens the display. I actually care a
bit less about loading huge images for 4k or other 'retina' displays than I do
just showing a 1000px image instead of a 500px (note, not a 1000px image in a
500px container for high dpi needs) image when the user expands the window,
etc.

currently very hackily checking browser width (and keeping in mind of image is
used in a grid or just a full-width image on its own) to rewrite all data-src
when the page loads and before lazy loading has kicked in (to prevent double
image downloading) on my photoblog:

[http://paulstamatiou.com/photos/carmel-
monterey/](http://paulstamatiou.com/photos/carmel-monterey/)

~~~
scotth
I believe the element that you're looking for is <picture>, which will be
shipping with a future version of Chrome.

[http://picture.responsiveimages.org/#examples](http://picture.responsiveimages.org/#examples)

~~~
PStamatiou
Ah right, thanks. I had been thinking that picture and srcset were competing.

~~~
igrigorik
They're complementary. <picture> uses subset of original srcset spec to meet
the "resolution switching" use case - e.g. see Example 1 [1]. If you want to
select an asset based on viewport width, then you'd either use "sizes"
attribute on picture, or a combination of srcset + sources + sizes.

[1]
[http://picture.responsiveimages.org/#examples](http://picture.responsiveimages.org/#examples)

------
slacka
This is great news, but what I'd really love to see is the Chrome team focus
on their memory footprint. Chrome < 20 used to run great on my 2GB ultrabook,
now Firefox is my only option. Chromium on my Raspberry Pi can barely handle 1
open tab, while Firefox can handle several before the system starts to thrash.

If Google was smart, they create a group like Firefox's memshrink to get this
situation under control.

------
therealmarv
Does anybody know if this responsive image thing also works in Firefox and are
there any polyfills for IE? Would look strange if images only look crisp and
detailed in Chrome.

~~~
nephyrin
Mozilla intends to implement srcset/picture, but it hasn't landed yet.
Relevant bugs:

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=870021](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=870021)
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=870022](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=870022)

------
mdemare
I hope the development tools get some love, since they're completely borked in
the last couple of releases.

~~~
farnsworth
Yes - what the heck happened there?

------
pjmlp
Still waiting for proper WebGL support without having to force it.

------
higherpurpose
Since I upgraded to Chrome 33, some Flash videos don't work anymore. The
screen is just black there, and there's no sound either. Are they aware of
this bug? It could be Adobe's fault, but Flash is updated in Chrome only
through Chrome, so then it's their fault, too.

For example, the live video here isn't working right now in Chrome, and when I
right click, it says "movie not loaded". It works in Firefox.

[http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/27/5453572/the-
vergecast-113](http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/27/5453572/the-vergecast-113)

~~~
pknight
Recently I can't get any browser to reliably render flash content without the
browser crashing or blacking out. It's a coin flip whether a video is going to
show or not. The irony is that IE 11 has been the most consistent of all
things.

