Maybe there could be like a 2Mb cap on each page load that you'd manually had to extend the quota on. Most sites that need more are accidental visits anyway. That should work even if the site is user hostile.
Just a second of though about the comment made would show so many issues with the idea, that maybe the idea isn't really a good one. At the least it would provide pause that maybe some sort of refinement is required to be taken seriously by anyone else.
As you can't control other people's choices, you can only control your environment. Which often means Firefox+Ublock/NoScript. I use Safari, but only visit a handful of these kinds of sites and never for long, often immediately closing tabs that show popups and annoying animations. And I have a pihole on my network.
These are companies that have allowed so many people to have a website that essentially is a SPA because that's an easy way for them to deploy template based sites. These are much easier to maintain than WordPress sites. Yes, I agree that most of these sites are simply static sites, and I think it would be amazing if these template JS library sites would allow you to render it flat static site once you hit publish or the equivalent. However, they would probably balk at the notion of not protecting their IP with obfuscated code and delivering readable HTML/CSS. I seriously doubt it takes 2MB of JS to operate these sites, and I'm guessing probably 90% of that code isn't used but is just bundled so the same thing is used everywhere.
However, to prove your point, there are many occasions where I've taken as a weekend project to find a template from Wix or similar that I like, and then recreate it in HTML/CSS by hand. It very much is a smaller site. But that's not something anyone here is disputing. The dispute is that you're wanting a fantasy world, and that's not the one we live in.
Otherwise I guess the limit could be in the tcp layer too.
And the limit would not care about breaking sites. So I guess it would only be aimed at technical users on mobile where bytes count. Unless it is easy to "continue" without serverside state breaking.
[0] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-...
I actually think I'll see if it is possible to do this with extensions api.
I don't need it. I don't want it. I try to disable it. But the setting either is ignored or simply doesn't work.
When and why did browsers give up on reliable autoplay blocking?
But at least there should be an easy way to make a website not have access to your speakers unless you opt in. 99% of the times, it's ads anyway, so the default should be to block sound. But that does not solve the bandwidth waste problem.
Fundamentally, the problem is Javascript. It makes it really hard for the user to be in control.
You can also use 'once' to have them stop after first playthrough.
But this is more a rant for modern webdev practices I'm not sure much can be done to circumvent it from a browser perspective.
Chrome is toying with custom accept header[1] types but they're used by servers to request information from clients, which is completely missing the point in my opinion.
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Content_ne...
Honestly it's getting a bit too noticeable how a full-featured adblocker is converging on just a way to let the user take back control over the user agent.
Not sure if this is winnable with the all-powerful JavaScript sitting there nearly always available.
I don’t get this web developer attitude of just ignoring the user’s preference and working around it. The user should be in control of what the browser is doing, not the web developer. I really want to love JavaScript but it’s power to override user preferences is inexcusable.
Horrible and totally unnecessary UI change, Apple. You could have easily kept the menu item. This is a frequently used action, it shouldn't be buried in Settings!!
Most browsers included a popup blocker because everyone agreed popups are annoying, now nearly every website has 3 different JS popups.
[1]: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-...
I've also found it ... interesting ... to note that a single Web page often has the memory footprint of an entire book (a few MB for just plain text, though that can balloon upwards with complex typesetting and graphics), and that even a browser optimised for e-ink (Einkbro) has roughly 10x the power consumption of the stock ebook reader (Neoreader) on my Onyx BOOX tablet (labeled as an e-book reader, but in fact an e-ink based Android tablet).
I can read books for days on a single battery charge. I can browse the Web for ... a few hours.
Other sites permit one to append ".json" for a raw JSON feed.
There are sites already which provide some form of this, notably sites using MediaWiki (which notably powers Wikipedia and Wikisource) offer multiple download options, though I don't think it's quite as flexible as I'd prefer.
Client support would be the other factor, with current Web browsers not being particularly multi-format. Though to be fair, Firefox, Safari, and Chrome all now natively support PDF documents.
I suspect that a render-to-ePub would be a much better alternative to standard HTML for mobile devices. ePub is inherently fluid, and tends to offer a subset of full HTML capabilities. (ePub is of course an archive of HTML, stylesheet, and other elements, though usually it's more strongly textually oriented than the modern Web is.)
For sufficiently large tablets, PDFs are actually a quite good document format.