@furyritchie said in FAF Website Main Video:
@Katharsas Hosting a video of this size ourselves doesn't really suck.
- It will be cached by browsers.
- It is streamed not downloaded.
YouTube is out of the question for a background video.
You are also an edge case that blocks the existing background image. We cannot design a webpage for someone using an adblocker to block existing images.
What we can do is keep this file super small and make it so that it falls back to an image for mobile phone users. We can optimize the current fallback image somewhat too.
Our webpage i supposed to be our landing page right? This means, it is supposed to make the best possible impression the first time a user lands on it, when he has nothing in cache. And we are, unlike Youtube, not using a CDN for self-hosted.
Yes, it is streamed, and if you go down this route please make sure that an Australien user with 16 Mbit downstream shared by family can experience the page without problems (but i will assume that nobody will test that, because this is what usually happens). Most likely they will end up with a stuttering, buffering background, because a full HD video stream can easily require 5-10 Mbit.
Also the ad-blocker story was not supposed to be a "case", i just wanted to tell you that even a 2 MB image on a landing page has the potential to effectively break the page, and that we have already had problems with content being hosted by our servers being slow to download in the past.
If whatever end-result will work on 3G mobile phone in a country not close to Germany, as well as on a 3-5 Mbit desktop connection im gonna stop complaining, but this whole idea is in my mind still really bad from a technical standpoint, and likely to end up with people coding something that "works for them" an then being called "good enough".
And all of that just so that things move in the background. I really don't get it. A good web page is fast and lighweight, and does not include a auto-on video.