I introduced the change to 0,1,2. Not sure what happened when we first introduced autoplay but the change to 0,1,2 was so we could let users switch between enabled, disabled and ask the user.
Original plan was to ask the user by default. We did some user testing with this change and it looks like we will be changing it to block by default based on feedback
Not sure what this has to do with any companies ad revenue, or pocket
Block by default, and not ask by default? That seems unfortunate to me, and will definitely break one of my services for Firefox users. I have a site which coordinates watching videos amongst a party of people. To the browser heuristics it looks like "autoplay" (the host starts the video manually, and some scripting on the page kicks it off for everyone else and works w/ the backend to maintain something resembling stream sync.) This is a consensual thing, you click the host's invite only link, you're taken to a landing page that tells you who made the link and briefly describes the service. Presumably you would not have clicked through all that if you didn't want to watch a video w/ the host.
I already had to deal w/ increased complaints from users due to scripts no longer being able to start the video in Chrome when the user hasn't interacted with the DOM yet. The only warning was an error in the development console. Users would get incredibly confused because they'd join the room and "lurk", i.e not interact w/ chat or the site, and then they'd be left wondering why everyone is commenting on the video when their's hasn't started playing.
I realize autoplay gets a lot of flak due to large corporations using it to further their aggressive marketing campaigns, but there are legitimate use cases out there which you will be breaking w/ a block-by-default policy. I'd urge you to reconsider ask-by-default, or at least allow scripts to have some sort of API whereby they can ask the user for permission ahead of time.
This just really sucks, because it's hard to communicate these sorts of things to my userbase which has wildly varying degrees of technical competency. It's also unfortunate to, essentially, need relay the message "some organizations (ab|mis)used this useragent functionality, so now nobody gets to use it."
It sucks when you want to use feature that arent available however users wishes always trump site authors, we tested ask by default and it turned out more users wanted them blocked
"Click here to play video" is also clear and easy to understand, not sure why you would think your users could not handle that.
>We tested ask by default and it turned out more users wanted them blocked.
I was one of those users, as I have Nightly installed. I hope you don't seriously think me clicking "no" on the majority of those popups in any way equates to me saying "videos should never autoplay." -- Hell I used my own service and approved one of those dialogs for it.
You should be careful how you read into statistics: there is a huge difference between "90+% of users said no to the autoplay prompt" and "90+% of users think autoplay should be off by default."
>Not sure why you would think your users could not handle that.
I don't think, I know, because I've fielded the numerous reports from users who thought my service was broken when Google[1] decided their "media engagement index" was too low and the videos weren't starting automatically for them.
It is objectively a bad experience for my users if they all have to manually click play and their streams are randomly offset from the host and they see people "spoiling" things in chat. The reality is that many of my users would sit on the page, looking at a play button (that wasn't there before), wondering why people are already talking about the video in chat. "Has it started yet?" "When does it start?" "I think I'm buffering", etc.
You're a benevolent site amidst a maelstrom of websites who eagerly want users to hear and see things that they didn't expect. And very large publishers are perhaps the most guilty. News websites, Facebook ads, and typical websites with some announcer voice yapping away with music in the back, trying to get your attention to Buy something.
So why stop at a pop-up for AutoPlay video?
"The website has requested permission to have autoplay video. Grant (Y/N)"
but also
" " " " .. requested permission to display notifications.."
Why stop there?
" .. requested permission to autoplay media with sound .."
and why not
" .. requested permission to set/store cookies "
Finally, after a drum roll:
"Sign up to this mailing list!" - unblockable JavaScript popup when you're a third down the article.
How many bloody popups would satisfy every single website publisher? Turn all the damn things off, let the designers figure out if they want to point a big giant arrow GIF to where the "Click Here" button to play the video is.
While I can understand the distaste for "dialog overload" the alternative being proposed here is that my service is broken for my users, or they go into `about:config`. My average user doesn't know, or care, what `about:config` is, so that's a non-starter. (Many of them are lost just going through the usual Preferences.) -- Plus I wouldn't want them to enable autoplay globally just to use my service.
At least with the webcam/microphone/notification APIs the average user has a chance at understanding what's going on, they are not being given the same choice here, and that's what I take issue with. Believe me I get it: every week there's some site that makes me go "what on earth do they need push notifications for?" -- I'm still happy to make that choice, though.
If this is about giving the user's more control over what they see: then the setting should not be hidden in about:config, full stop. I know this may be lost on the HN crowd, but doing that relegates the functionality to a small fraction of power-users.
If this is about giving the user's more control over what they see: then the setting should not be hidden in about:config, full stop. I know this may be lost on the HN crowd, but doing that relegates the functionality to a small fraction of power-users.
You know what, I think we agree! That's two votes for "move some stuff out of top-secret about:config and into Settings where the mortals can actually use it, it's useful for them."
>Block by default, and not ask by default? That seems unfortunate to me, and will definitely break one of my services for Firefox users.
Hold on -- do you want a popup every time you visit a new page? It's a nightmare. And break what for whom? You want something to play, you click the Play icon on the video. It doesn't BLOCK video by default, it blocks the autoplaying of the same.
Also - and perhaps this was some bug or some setting I had - but when I updated to 'that' Firefox some months back, I'm pretty sure I had autoplay playING things. I had previously used about:config to have autoplay off, and then they changed it (as per the 0 1 2 and property name change). Possibly I hit enter too fast, possibly I didn't notice and just got annoyed at the popups asking me, whatever it was, I wanted it just "off" and I had to Google around until I found comment in some forum someplace which has this option. The point is, instead of being an "about:config" option, it should be an obvious setting in the Menu -> Options section.
I'm amazed that someone thinks not forcing things is somehow "breaking" things. If it's the type of breaking you mean (breaking ad-tech), then yes, let's continue the smashathon. Autoplay video, whether on a news site or some yapping garbage on the side as an ad, is a terrible trend for us who don't like such distractions.
>You want something to play when you click the play icon on the video.
My users explicitly do not want that, it's why I built my service, to answer a need which was not met: the lack of a virtual space to have a shared theater-like experience. They want the video to play when it starts for everyone else in the room, and they were extremely confused a few months ago when Google broke the same thing.
"I realize autoplay gets a lot of flak due to large corporations using it to further their aggressive marketing campaigns"
Not just because of that, although that is the most egregious example. Personally, I find any autoplay at all to be objectionable. It doesn't matter if it's an ad, a YouTube video, or anything else.
I respect your opinion but sadly my service just does not work any other way. You don't go to a theater and choose when the projectionist starts the film, or when the actors start playing, or when the musicians start their concert: the venue / director / manager determine that ahead of time. You don't go to a party and choose what music the host plays, though obviously one hopes the host would value your input should you choose to speak for or against a particular set list. -- That is what my service sets out to create: a shared virtual environment where people can experience media, together, in realtime, as opposed to it being a solitary experience.
If useragents remove my ability to start playing content on behalf of my users (who have already agreed to that by clicking past the event banner) then my service will have to move to a non-web platform. Though we have a difference of opinion hopefully you can see why I find that prospect to be distressing: I love the web, and I hate to see it effectively sunsetting my application.
I'm confused about what this means when for example I want the video to play via javascript external to the embedded player.
For example, when user clicks text link on page that opens a lightbox (such as fancybox) containing an embedded video. I (and the user) would want the video to begin playing immediately upon opening the lightbox. But it sounds ilke the user will now need to additionally press play on the embedded video? Anyone know?
I really hope this is not the case. I'm hoping the clicking of the initial text link that opens lightbox is enough to authorize video playback with sound on all devices.
I hope there's a bigger backlash to Google blacklisting/whitelisting certain features on websites they deem worthy/unworthy.
It's one thing to discriminate against certain sites in Search, where Google owns the webpages and servers. But to discriminate against the open web so that their services have an advantage over startups and smaller publishers is beyond unethical. At this point they're starting to act like a monopolistic ISP and should be called out for it.
Original plan was to ask the user by default. We did some user testing with this change and it looks like we will be changing it to block by default based on feedback
Not sure what this has to do with any companies ad revenue, or pocket