Intent to Experiment: LazyEmbeds
Minoru Chikamune
Contact emails
chik...@chromium.org, sisid...@chromium.org
Explainer:
Specification: https://github.com/nyaxt/lazyembeds
Summary: LazyEmbeds aims to improve LCP and power consumption by delaying the iframe loads outside the viewport when all of the following conditions are met.
The loading=eager or loading=lazy are not specified in the iframe tag.
The iframe's src URL matches a pre-curated list of 3rd party embeds that have opted-in to the experiment.
The page is visible.
The iframe's src URL must be cross origin.
LazyEmbeds doesn't load the offscreen iframes until the viewport comes near the iframe. So the iframes that are eligible for LazyEmbeds might not be loaded at all. Site authors can specify loading=eager on frames to opt-out LazyEmbeds.
The current LazyEmbeds implementations target a 1% stable channel for data gathering purposes. We don't release these LazyEmbeds as-is.
Blink component: Blink>Loader
TAG review
None
TAG review status
Not applicable
Risks
Interoperability and Compatibility
The goal of the experiment is to test if the idea actually improves page load UX. Once that is proven, we would like to start pitching in the standardization forum on having the new behavior part of the spec.
We have a rough sketch of how it would look like in terms of specification changes at https://github.com/nyaxt/lazyembeds. LazyEmbeds applies a different loading schedule to offscreen cross-origin <iframe>s. Site authors who believe offscreen content is a critical part of the user-experience may find this breaks their expectations. To restore the previous behavior, authors can specify loading=eager on those frames.
Ergonomics
Websites don’t have to do anything.
Activation
LazyEmbeds works without any developer activation.
Security and privacy
LazyEmbeds doesn't have any security and privacy concerns.
Goals for experimentation
We would like to judge if this is a good idea or not before we would like to validate our hypothesis using the performance data (e.g. Core Web Vitals and battery power consumption) collected through the experiment before we proceed to the next steps (open-ended discussion with other vendors, involved 3rd-parties).
Experimental timeline
We’d like to start an experimental 1% rollout in M104.
Any risks when the experiment finishes?
No.
Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)?
Yes.
Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests?
No, through the experiment phase, but if the idea proves to be useful through the experiment and makes it to the spec, we will add WPTs to cover them.
Tracking bug
Launch bug
Links to previous Intent discussions
N/A
Link to entry on the feature dashboard
Not yet.
Yoav Weiss
Contact emails
chik...@chromium.org, sisid...@chromium.org
Explainer:
Specification: https://github.com/nyaxt/lazyembeds
Summary: LazyEmbeds aims to improve LCP and power consumption by delaying the iframe loads outside the viewport when all of the following conditions are met.
The loading=eager or loading=lazy are not specified in the iframe tag.
The iframe's src URL matches a pre-curated list of 3rd party embeds that have opted-in to the experiment.
The page is visible.
The iframe's src URL must be cross origin.
LazyEmbeds doesn't load the offscreen iframes until the viewport comes near the iframe. So the iframes that are eligible for LazyEmbeds might not be loaded at all. Site authors can specify loading=eager on frames to opt-out LazyEmbeds.
The current LazyEmbeds implementations target a 1% stable channel for data gathering purposes. We don't release these LazyEmbeds as-is.
Blink component: Blink>Loader
TAG review
None
TAG review status
Not applicable
Risks
Interoperability and Compatibility
The goal of the experiment is to test if the idea actually improves page load UX. Once that is proven, we would like to start pitching in the standardization forum on having the new behavior part of the spec.
We have a rough sketch of how it would look like in terms of specification changes at https://github.com/nyaxt/lazyembeds. LazyEmbeds applies a different loading schedule to offscreen cross-origin <iframe>s. Site authors who believe offscreen content is a critical part of the user-experience may find this breaks their expectations. To restore the previous behavior, authors can specify loading=eager on those frames.
Ergonomics
Websites don’t have to do anything.
Activation
LazyEmbeds works without any developer activation.
Security and privacy
LazyEmbeds doesn't have any security and privacy concerns.
Goals for experimentation
We would like to judge if this is a good idea or not before we would like to validate our hypothesis using the performance data (e.g. Core Web Vitals and battery power consumption) collected through the experiment before we proceed to the next steps (open-ended discussion with other vendors, involved 3rd-parties).
Experimental timeline
We’d like to start an experimental 1% rollout in M104.
Any risks when the experiment finishes?
No.
Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)?
Yes.
Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests?
No, through the experiment phase, but if the idea proves to be useful through the experiment and makes it to the spec, we will add WPTs to cover them.
Tracking bug
Launch bug
Links to previous Intent discussions
N/A
Link to entry on the feature dashboard
Not yet.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAEy%2BVD%2B4e%2BvU6aiP9bEmfWc0SD%2B7%2Be8ngNe_bn7vUGSWco4u0A%40mail.gmail.com.
Kenji Baheux
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 4:55 AM Minoru Chikamune <chik...@chromium.org> wrote:Contact emails
chik...@chromium.org, sisid...@chromium.org
Explainer:
Specification: https://github.com/nyaxt/lazyembeds
Summary: LazyEmbeds aims to improve LCP and power consumption by delaying the iframe loads outside the viewport when all of the following conditions are met.
The loading=eager or loading=lazy are not specified in the iframe tag.
The iframe's src URL matches a pre-curated list of 3rd party embeds that have opted-in to the experiment.
How have the 3P embeds opted-in to the experiment? Is this a closed partner list for the experiment phase?
Am I correct in thinking that 3P embeds that would like this behavior (in the long term) can already opt-in by modifying their snippets to include `loading=lazy`?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfWmqxn2miQ__F7Tpx5tkQJOQoOv4tuYvU4O2sY7dRma-w%40mail.gmail.com.
Yoav Weiss
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 4:39 PM Yoav Weiss <yoav...@chromium.org> wrote:On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 4:55 AM Minoru Chikamune <chik...@chromium.org> wrote:Contact emails
chik...@chromium.org, sisid...@chromium.org
Explainer:
Specification: https://github.com/nyaxt/lazyembeds
Summary: LazyEmbeds aims to improve LCP and power consumption by delaying the iframe loads outside the viewport when all of the following conditions are met.
The loading=eager or loading=lazy are not specified in the iframe tag.
The iframe's src URL matches a pre-curated list of 3rd party embeds that have opted-in to the experiment.
How have the 3P embeds opted-in to the experiment? Is this a closed partner list for the experiment phase?Sorry for the miscommunication.There isn't an actual opt-in. For the purpose of establishing the potential benefits, the code is applying loading=lazy to a small list of popular embeds. We gave a heads-up to these embedders as a matter of courtesy, and to give folks the opportunity to push back or share concerns. So far, we haven't heard any major concerns.We'll revisit this particular point and re-engage with owners of popular embeds after the experiment concludes, assuming that the impact is significant.In addition, embed owners can opt-out from the experiment by setting loading=eager. That said, we would love to hear why folks feel compelled to opt-out, and adjust our approach as necessary.
Am I correct in thinking that 3P embeds that would like this behavior (in the long term) can already opt-in by modifying their snippets to include `loading=lazy`?Yes, some embedders might be able to achieve the same behavior by setting loading=lazy.One of the embedders we talked to has already made that change for their default snippet.However, it might not be practical to do so for the embeds already integrated (hardcoded) by various websites.