rocky1138problem: browsing websites with images enabled is much slower than with them disabled, but how can a web designer/developer tell the browser which images are important and which are unimportant to the content?
rocky1138possible solution ./ idea: a microformat that web developers can use to hint to the browser which ones to show. a Firefox/browser extension would pick up the microformat info and show those, leaving the rest on the server and not requested
rocky1138conclusion: browsing would be snappier on these web sites (especially on low-performance machines) while still showing the most important images in the content, etc.
rocky1138possible solution / alternate: the same effect may be done with a browser extension and, instead of a microformat, using the z-index to decide priority of the images
rocky1138simply: instead of "load images on sites" being a boolean, I'd like to see it be "load only high priority images on sites" to help speed up browsing, reduce bandwidth use, etc.
csarvenrocky1138 Also, what you describe can be done by the publisher/developer by only including the "important" <img/> in HTML, and use JavaScript to pull in the other ones at user's request. The thing is that when you include <img/> the browser will HTTP GET on those resources. An extension to prevent or prioritize any of that is hacky workaround.
csarvenIf the publisher wants to speed of page load or whatever, they can simply follow good information architecture practices. For example, in this case, they can break a page with many images into multiple pages
csarvenLastly, what you put forward has to do with page performance problems, as opposed to microformats, which is intended to help publish data that's geared for humans consumption by also making them machine processable.
Phaethat's an interesting read, regardless of that decision. they make some interesting points/insights into problems or issues with our processes or how we might be viewed as a community