Building Flickr’s new Hybrid Signed-Out Homepage

Adventures in Frontend-Landia

tl;dr: Chrome’s DevTools: still awesome. Test carefully on small screens, mobile/tablets. Progressively enhance “extraneous”, but shiny, features where appropriate.

Building a fast, fun Slideshow / Web Page Hybrid

Every so often, dear reader, you may find yourself with a unique opportunity. Sometimes it’s a chance to take on some crazy ideas, break the rules and perhaps get away with some front-end skullduggery that wouldn’t be allowed, nor encouraged under normal circumstances. In this instance, Flickr’s newest Signed-Out Homepage turned out to be just that sort of thing.

The 2014 signed-out experience ( is a hybrid, interactive blend of slideshow and web page combining scroll and scaling tricks, all the while highlighting the lovely new Flickr mobile apps for Android and iPhone with UI demos shown via inline HTML5 video and JS/CSS-based effects. scroll-through demo


In 2013, we covered performance details of developing a vertical-scrolling page using some parallax effects, targeting and optimizing for a smooth experience. In 2014, we are using some of the same techniques, but have added some new twists and tricks. In addition, there is more consideration for some smaller screens this year, given the popularity of tablet and other portable devices.


  • Fluid slideshow-like UI, scale3d() and zoom-based scaling of content for larger screens

  • Inline HTML5 <video>, “retina” / hi-DPI scale (with fallback considerations)

  • Timeline-based HTML transition effects, synced to HTML5 video

  • “Hijacking” of touch/mouse/keyboard scroll actions, where appropriate to experience

  • Background parallax, scale/zoom and blur effects (where supported)

Usability Considerations: Scrolling

In line with current trends, our designers intended to have a slideshow-like experience. The page was to be split into multiple “slides” of a larger presentation, with perhaps some additional navigation elements and cues to help the user move between slides.

Out in the wild, implementations of the slideshow-style web page widely in their flexibility. Controlling the presentation like this is challenging and dangerous from a technical perspective, as the first thing you are doing is trying to prevent the browser from doing what it does well (arbitrary bi-directional scrolling, in either staggered steps or smooth inertia-based increments depending on the method used) in favour of your own method which is more likely to have holes in its implementation.

If you’re going to hijack a basic interaction like scrolling, attention to detail is critical. Because you’ve built something non-standard, even in the best case the user may notice and think, “That’s not how it normally scrolls, but it responded and now I’m seeing the next page.” If you’re lucky, they could be using a touchpad to scroll and may barely notice the difference.

By carefully managing the display of content to fit the screen and accounting for common scroll actions, we are able to confidently override the browser’s default scroll behaviour in most cases to present a unique experience that’s a hybrid of web page and slideshow.

The implementation itself is fairly straightforward; you can listen to the mouse wheel event (triggered both by physical wheels and touchpads), determine which direction the user is moving in, debounce further wheel events and then run an animation to transition to the next slide. It’s imperfect and subject to double-scrolling, but most users will not “throw” the scroll so hard that it retains enough inertia and continues to fire after your animation ends.

Additionally, if the user is on an OS that shows a scrollbar (i.e., non-OS X or OS X with a mouse plugged in), they should be able to grab and drag the scrollbar and navigate through the page that way. Don’t even try messing with that stuff – your users will kill you with pitchforks, ensuring you will be sent to Web Developer Usability Anti-Pattern Hell. You will not pass Go, and will not collect $200.

Content Sizing

In order to get a slideshow-like experience, each “slide” had to be designed to fit within common viewport dimensions. We assumed roughly 1024×768, but ended up targeting a minimum viewport height of around 600px – roughly what you’d get on a typical 13″ MacBook laptop with a maximized window and a visible dock. In retrospect, that doesn’t feel like a whole lot of space; it’s important to consider if you’re also aiming to display your work on mobile screens, as well.

Once each slide fit within our target dimensions, the positioning of each slide’s content could be tightly controlled. Each is in a relatively-positioned container so they stack vertically as normal, and the height is at minimum, the height of the viewport or the natural offsetHeight dictated by the content itself. Reasonable defaults are first assigned by CSS, and future updates are done via JS at initial render and on window.resize().

With each slide being one viewport high, one might assume we could then let the user scroll freely through the content, perusing at will. We decided to go against this and control the scrolling for a few reasons.

  • Web browsers’ default “page down” (spacebar or page up/down keys, etc.) does not scroll through 100% of the viewport, as we would want in this case; there is always some overlap from the previous page. While this is completely logical considering the context of reading a document, etc., we want to scroll precisely to the beginning of the next frame. Thus, we use JS to animate and set scrollTop.

  • Content does not normally shift vertically when the user resizes their browser, but will now due to JS adjusting each slide’s height to fit the viewport as mentioned. Thus, we must also adjust scrollTop to re-align to the current slide, preventing the content from shifting as the user resizes the window. Sneaky.

  • We want to know when a user enters and leaves a slide, so we can play or reset HTML5 <video> elements and related animations as appropriate. By controlling scroll, we have discrete events for both.

Content Scaling

Given that we know the dimensions of our content and the dimensions of the browser viewport, we are able to “zoom” each slide’s absolutely-positioned content to fit nicely within the viewport of larger screens. This is a potential minefield-type feature, but can be applied selectively after careful testing. Just like min and max-width, you can implement your own form of min-scale and max-scale.

Content Scaling demo

Avoiding Pixelation

Scaling raster-based content, of course, is subject to degrading pretty quickly in terms of visual quality. To help combat pixelation, scaling is limited to a reasonable maximum – i.e., 150% – and where practical, retina/hi-DPI (@2x) assets are used for elements like icons, logos and so forth, regardless of screen type. This works rather well on standard LCDs. On the hi-DPI side, thankfully, huge retina screens are not common and there is less potential for scaling.

Depending on browser, content scaling can be done via scale3d() or the old DOM .style.zoom property (yes, it wasn’t just meant for triggering layout in old IE.) From my findings, Webkit appears to rasterize all content before scaling it. As a result, vector-based content like text is blurred in Webkit when using scale3d(). Thus, Wekbit gets the older .style.zoom approach. Firefox doesn’t support .style.zoom, but does render crisp text when using scale3d().

There are few tricks to getting scaling to work, short of updating it alongside initial render and window.resize() events. overflow: hidden may need to be applied to the frame container, in the scale3d() case.

JS Performance: window.onscroll() and window.onresize()

It’s no secret: scroll and resize are two popular JavaScript events that can cause a lot of layout thrashing. Some cost is incurred by the browser’s own layout, decoding of images, compositing and painting, but most notable thrashing is caused by developers attaching expensive UI refresh-related functions to these events. Parallax effects on scrolling is a popular example, but resize can trigger it as well.

In this case, synchronous code fires on resize so that the frames immediately resize themselves to fit the new window dimensions, and the window’s scrollTop property is adjusted to prevent any vertical shift of content. This is expensive, but is justified in keeping the view consistent with what the user would expect during resize.

Scroll events on this page are throttled (that is, there is not a 1:1 event-firing-to-code-running ratio) so that the parallax, zoom and blur effects on the page – which can be expensive when combined – are updated at a lower, yet still responsive interval, thus lowering the load on rendering during scroll.

Fun stuff: Background sizing, Parallax, Scale-based Motion, Blur Effects via Opacity, Video/HTML Timelines

The parallax thing has been done before, by Flickr and countless other web sites. This year, some twists on the style included a gradual blur effect introduced as the user scrolls down the page, and in some cases, a slight motion effect via scaling.

Backgrounds and Overlays

For this fluid layout, the design needed to be flexible enough that exact background positioning was not a requirement. We wanted to retain scale, and also cover the browser window. A fixed-position element is used in this case, width/height: 100%, background-size: cover and background-position: 50% 0px, which works nicely for the main background and additional image-based overlays that are sometimes shown.

The background tree scene becomes increasingly blurry as the user scrolls through the page. CSS-based filters and canvas were options, but it was simpler to apply these as background images with identical scaling and positioning, and overlay them on top of the existing tree image. As the user scrolls through the top half of the page, a “semi-blur” image is gradually made visible by adjusting opacity. For the latter half, the semi-blur is at 100% and a third “full-blur” image is faded in using the same opacity approach.

Where supported, the background also also scales up somewhat as the user scrolls through the page, giving the effect of forward motion toward the trees. It is subtle when masked by the foreground content, but still noticeable.

Here is an example with the content hidden, showing how the background moves during scroll.

Background parallax/blur/zoom demo

Parallax + Scaling

In terms of parallax, a little extra image is needed for the background to be able to move. Thus, the element containing the background images is width: 100% and height: 110%. The background is scaled by the browser to fit the container as previously described, and the additional 10% height is off-screen “parallax buffering” content. This way, the motion is always relative in scale and consistent with the background.

HTML5 Video and “Timelines” in JS

One of the UI videos in this page shows live filters being applied – “Iced Tea”, “Throwback” and so on, and we wanted to have those filters showing outside the video area also if possible. Full-screen video was considered briefly, but wasn’t appropriate for this design. Thus, it was JS to the rescue. By listening to a video’s timeupdate event and watching the currentTime attribute, events could be queued in JS with an associated time, and subsequently fired roughly in sync with effects in the video.

Filter UI demo

In this case, the HTML-based effects were simple CSS opacity transitions triggered by changing className values on a parent element.

When a user leaves a slide, the video can be reset when the scroll animation completes, and any filter / transition-based effects can also be faded out. If the user returns to the slide, the video and effects seamlessly restart from their original position.

HTML5 Video Fallbacks

Some clients treat inline HTML5 video specially, or may lack support for the video formats you provide. Both MP4 (H.264) and WebM are used in this case, but there’s still no guarantee of support. Tablet and mobile devices are unlikely to allow auto-play of video, may show a play arrow-style overlay, or may only play video in full-screen mode. It’s good to keep these factors in mind when developing a multimedia-rich page; many users are on smaller screens – tablets, phones and the like – which need to be given consideration in terms of their features and support.

Some clients also support a poster attribute on the video element, which takes a URL to a static poster frame image. This can sometimes be a good fallback, where a device may have video support but fails to decode or play the provided video assets. Some browsers don’t support the poster attribute, so in those instances you may want to listen for error events thrown from the video element. If it looks like the video can’t be played, you can use this event as a signal to hide the video element with an image of the poster frame URL.

Considerations for Tablets and Smaller Screens

The tl;dr of this section: Start with a simple CSS-only layout, and (carefully) progressively enhance your effects via JS depending on the type of device.

2014 Flickr Signed-Out Homepage

Smaller devices don’t have the bandwidth, CPU or GPU of their laptop and desktop counterparts. Additionally, they typically do not fire resize and scroll events with the same rapid interval because they are optimized for touch and inertia-based scrolling. Therefore, it is best to avoid “scroll hijacking” entirely; instead, allow users to swipe or otherwise scroll through the page as they normally would.

Given the points about video support and auto-play not being allowed, the benefits offered by controlled scrolling are largely moot on smaller devices. Users who tap on videos will find that they do play where supported, in line with their experience on other web sites. The iPad with iOS 7 and some Samsung tablets, for example, are capable of playing inline video, but the iPhone will go to a full-screen view and then return to the web page when “done” is tapped.

Without controlled scrolling and regular scroll events being fired, the parallax, blur and zoom effects are also not appropriate to use on smaller screens. Even if scroll events were fired or a timer were used to force regular updates at a similar interval, the effects would be too heavy for most devices to draw at any reasonable frame rate. The images for these effects are also fairly large, contributing to page weight.

Rendering Performance

Much of what helped for this page was covered in the 2013 article, but is worth a re-tread.

  • Do as little DOM “I/O” as possible.

  • Cache DOM attributes that are expensive (cause layout) to read. Possible candidates include offsetWidth, offsetHeight, scrollTop, innerWidth, innerHeight etc.

  • Throttle your function calls, particularly layout-causing work, for listeners attached to window scroll and resize events as appropriate.

  • Use translate3d() for moving elements (i.e., fast parallax), and for promoting selected elements to layers for GPU-accelerated rendering.

It’s helpful to look at measured performance in Chrome’s DevTools “Timeline” / frames view, and the performance pane of IE 11’s “F12 Developer Tools” during development to see if there are any hotspots in your CSS or JS in particular. It can also be helpful to have a quick way to disable JS, to see if there are any expensive bits present just when scrolling natively and without regular events firing. JS aside, browsers still have to do layout, decode, resize and compositing of images for display, for example.


Chrome DevTools: Initial page load, and scroll-through. There are a few expensive image decode and resize operations, but overall the performance is quite smooth. SOHP, IE 11 "F12 Developer Tools" Profiling

IE 11 + Windows 8.1, F12 Developer Tools: “UI Responsiveness” panel. Again, largely smooth with a few expensive frames here and there. The teal-coloured frames toward the middle are related to image decoding.

For the record, I found that Safari 7.0.3 on OS X (10.9.2) renders this page incredibly smoothly when scrolling, as seen in the demo videos. I suspect some of the overhead may stem from JS animating scrollTop. If I were to do this again, I might look at using a transition and applying something sneaky like translate3d() to move the whole page, effectively bypassing scrolling entirely. However, that would require eliminating the scrollbar altogether for usability.

What’s Next?

While a good number of Flickr users are on desktop or laptop browsers, tablets and mobile devices are here to stay. With a growing number of users on various forms of portable web browsers, designers and developers will have to work closely together to build pages that are increasingly fluid, responsive and performant across a variety of screens, platforms and device capabilities.

Flickr flamily floto

Did I mention we’re hiring? We have openings in our San Francisco office. Find out more at

Adventures in Jank Busting: Parallax, performance, and the new Flickr Home Page

tl;dr version: transform3d() is your friend, but use sparingly. Chrome Dev Tools are awesome.

What’s old is new again: Stealing from the arcade

Back in 1985, games like Super Mario Bros. popularized the effect of horizontal parallax scrolling – a technique wherein the background moves at a slower speed relative to the foreground, giving the impression of depth. In 2013, the web is seeing a trend of vertical parallax effects as developers look to make pages feel more interactive and responsive. Your author’s $0.25, for the record, is that we’ll continue to see arcade and demoscene-era effects being ported over to the mainstream web in creative ways as client-side performance improves.

While the effect can be aesthetically pleasing when executed correctly, parallax motion tends to be expensive to render – and when performance is lacking, the user’s impression of your site may follow suit.

Vertical parallaxing is pretty straightforward in behaviour: For every Y pixels of vertical axis scrolling, move an absolutely-positioned image in the same direction at scale. There are some additional considerations for the offset of the element on the page and how far it can move, but the implementation remains quite simple.

The following are some findings made while working on Flickr’s redesigned signed-out homepage at, specifically related to rendering and scrolling performance.

Events and DOM performance

To optimize performance in the browser environment, it’s important to consider the expensive parts of DOM “I/O”. You ideally want a minimal amount of both, particularly since this is work being done during scrolling. Executing JavaScript on scroll is one of the worst ways to interrupt the browser, typically because it’s done to introduce reflow/layout and painting – thus, denying the browser the chance to use GPU/hardware-accelerated scrolling. window.onscroll() can also fire very rapidly on desktops, making way for a veritable flood of expensive scroll → reflow → paint operations if your “paths” are not fast.

A typical parallax implementation will hook into window.onscroll(), and will update the backgroundPosition or marginTop of an element with a background image attached in order to make it move. An <img> could be used here, but backgrounds are convenient because they allow for positioning in relative units, tiling and so on.

A minimal parallax example, just the script portion:

window.onscroll = function(e) {

  var parallax = document.getElementById('parallax-background'); = (window.scrollY/2) + 'px';


This could work for a single element, but quickly breaks down if multiple elements are to be updated. In any case, references to the DOM should be cached for faster look-ups; reading window.scrollY and other DOM attributes can be expensive due to potential to cause layout/reflow themselves, and thus should also be stored in a local variable for each onscroll() event to minimize thrashing.

An additional performance consideration: Should all parallax elements always be moved, even those which are outside of the viewport? Quick tests suggested savings were negligible in this case at best. Even if the additional work to determine in-view elements were free, moving only one element did not notably improve performance relative to moving only three at a time. It appears that Webkit’s rendering engine is smart about this, as the only expensive operations seen here involve painting things within the viewport.

In any event, using marginTop or backgroundPosition alone will not perform well as neither take advantage of hardware-accelerated compositing.

And now, VOIDH (Video Or It Didn’t Happen) of marginTop-based parallax performing terribly:

Look at that: Terrible. Jank city! You can try it for yourself in your browser of choice, via via ?notransform=1.

Enter the GPU: Hardware Acceleration To The Rescue

Despite caching our DOM references and scroll properties, the cost of drawing all these pixels in software is very high. The trick to performance here is to have the GPU (hardware) take on the job of accelerating the compositing of the expensive bits, which can be done much faster than in software rendering.

Elements can be promoted to a “layer” in rendering terms, via CSS transforms like translate3d(). When this and other translateZ()-style properties are applied, the element will then be composited by the GPU, avoiding expensive repaints. In this case, we are interested in having fast-moving parallax backgrounds. Thus, translate3d() can be applied directly to the parallax element.

window.onscroll = function(e) {

  // note: most browsers presently use prefixes: webkitTransform, mozTransform etc.

  var parallax = document.getElementById('parallax-background'); = 'translate3d(0px,' + (window.scrollY/2) + 'px, 0px)';


In webkit-based browsers like Safari and Chrome, the results speak for themselves.

Look, ma! Way less jank! The performance here is comparable to the same page with parallax disabled (i.e., regular browser scrolling/drawing.)

GPU acceleration sounds like a magic bullet, but it comes at the cost of both video memory and cache. If you create too many layers, you may see rendering problems and even degraded performance – so use them selectively.

It’s also worth noting that browser-based hardware acceleration and performance rests on having agreement between the browser, drivers, OS, and hardware. Firefox might be sluggish on one machine, and butter-smooth on another. High-density vs. standard-resolution screens make a big difference in paint cost. All GPUs are made equal, but some GPUs are made more equal than others. The videos and screenshots for this post were made on my work laptop, which may perform quite differently than your hardware. Ultimately, you need to test your work on a variety of devices to see what real-world performance is like – and this is where Chrome’s dev tools come in handy.

Debugging Render Performance

In brief, Chrome’s Developer Tools are awesome. Chrome Canary typically has the freshest features in regards to profiling, and Safari also has many of the same. The features most of interest to this entry are the Timeline → Frames view, and the gear icon’s “Show Paint rectangles” and “Show composited layer borders” options.

Timeline → Frames view: Helpful in identifying expensive painting operations.

Paint rectangles + composited layer borders, AKA “Plaid mode.” Visually identify layers.

Timeline → Frames view

Timeline’s “Frames” view allows you to see how much time is spent calculating and drawing each frame during runtime, which gives a good idea of rendering performance. To maintain a refresh rate of 60 frames per second, each frame must take no longer than 16 milliseconds to draw. If you have JS doing expensive things during scroll events, this can be particularly challenging.

Expensive frames in Flickr’s case stem primarily from occasional decoding of JPEGs and non-cached image resizes, and more frequently, compositing and painting. The less of each that your page requires, the better.

Paint rectangles

It is interesting to see what content is being painted (and re-painted) by the browser, particularly during scroll events. Enabling paint rectangles in Chrome’s dev tools results in red highlights on paint areas. In the ideal case when scrolling, you should see red only around the scrollbar area; in the best scenario, the browser is able to efficiently move the rest of the HTML content in hardware-accelerated fashion, effectively sliding it vertically on the screen without having to perform expensive paint operations. Script-based DOM updates, CSS :hover and transition effects can all cause painting to happen when scrolling, so keep these things in mind as well.

Composited layer borders

As mentioned previously, layers are elements that have been promoted and are to be composited by the GPU, via CSS properties like translate3d(), translateZ() and so on. With layer borders enabled, you can get a visual representation of promoted elements and review whether your CSS is too broad or too specific in creating these layers. The browser itself may also create additional layers based on a number of scenarios such as the presence of child elements, siblings, or elements that overlap an existing layer.

Composited borders are shown in brown. Cyan borders indicate a tile, which combines with other tiles to form a larger composited layer.

Other notes

Image rendering costs

When using parallax effects, “full-bleed” images that cover the entire page width are also popular. One approach is to simply use a large centered background image for all clients, regardless of screen size; alternately, a responsive @media query-style approach can be taken where separate images are cut to fit within common screen widths like 1024, 1280, 1600, 2048 etc. In some cases, however, the single-size approach can work quite nicely.

In the case of the Flickr homepage, the performance cost in using 2048-pixel-wide background images for all screens seemed to be negligible – even in spite of “wasted” pixels for those browsing at 1024×768. The approach we took uses clip-friendly content, typically a centered “hero” element with shading and color that extends to the far edges. Using this approach, the images are quite width-agnostic. The hero-style images also compress quite nicely as JPEGs thanks to their soft gradients and lighting; as one example, we got a 2048×950-pixel image of a flower down to 68 KB with little effort.

Bandwidth aside, the 2048-pixel-wide images clip nicely on screens down to 1024 pixels in width and with no obvious flaws. However, Chrome’s dev tools also show that there are costs associated with decoding, compositing, re-sizing and painting images which should be considered.

Testing on my work laptop*, “Image resized (non-cached)” is occasionally shown in Chrome’s timeline → frames view after an Image Decode (JPEG) operation – both of which appear to be expensive, contributing to a frame that took 60 msec in one case. It appears that this happens the first time a large parallax image is scrolled into the viewport. It is unclear why there is a resize (and whether it can be avoided), but I suspect it’s due to the retina display on this particular laptop. I’m not using background-size or otherwise applying scaling/sizing in CSS, merely positioning eg., background-position:50% 50%; and background-repeat: no-repeat;. As curiosity sets in, this author will readily admit he has some more research to do on this front. ;)

There are also aspects to RAM and caching that can affect GPU performance. I did not dig deeply into this specifically for Flickr’s new homepage, but it is worth considering the impact of the complexity and number of layers present and active at any given time. If regular scrolling triggers non-cached image resizes each time an asset is scrolled into view, there may be a cache eviction problem stemming from having too many layers active or present at once.

* Work laptop: Mid-2012 15″ Retina MBP, 16 GB RAM, 2.6 Ghz Intel i7, NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M/1024 MB, OS X 10.8.3.

Debugging in action

Here are two videos showing performance of with transforms disabled and enabled, respectively.

Transforms off (marginTop-based parallax)

Notice the huge spikes on the timeline with transforms disabled, indicating many frames that are taking up to 80 msec to draw; this is terrible for performance, “blowing the frame budget” of 16 ms, and lowers UI responsiveness significantly. Red paint rectangles indicate that the whole viewport is being repainted on scroll, a major contributor to performance overhead. With compositing borders, you see that every “strip” of the page – each parallax background, in effect – is rendered as a single layer. A quick check of the FPS meter and “continuous repaint” graphs does not look great.

Side note: Continuous repaint is most useful when not scrolling. The feature causes repeated painting of the viewport, and displays an FPS graph with real-time performance numbers. You can go into the style editor while continuous repaint is on and flip things off, e.g., disabling box-shadow, border-radius or hiding expensive elements via display to see if the frame rate improves.

Transforms on (translate3d()-based parallax)

With GPU acceleration, you see much-improved frame times, thus a higher framerate and a smoother, more-responsive UI. There is still the occasional spike when a new image scrolls into view, but there is much less jank overall than before. Paint rectangles are much less common thanks to the GPU-accelerated compositing, and layer borders now indicate that more individual elements are being promoted. The FPS meter and continuous repaint mode does have a few dips and spikes, but performance is notably improved.

You may notice that I intentionally trigger video playback in this case, to see how it performs. The flashing red is the result of repainting as the video plays back – and in spite of overflow: hidden-based clipping we apply for the parallax effect on the video, it’s interesting to notice that the overflowed content, while not visible, is also being painted.


Random bits: HTML5 <video>

A frame from a .webm and H.264-encoded video, shown in the mobile portion of Flickr’s redesigned home page.

We wanted the signed-out Flickr homepage to highlight our mobile offerings, including an animation or video showing a subtly-rotating iPhone demoing the Flickr iOS app on a static background. Instead of an inline video box, it felt appropriate to have a full-width video following the pattern used for the parallax images. The implementation is nearly the same, and simply uses a <video> element instead of a CSS background.

With video, the usual questions came up around performance and file size: Would a 2048-pixel-wide video be too heavy for older computers to play back? What if we cropped the video only to be as wide as needed to cover the area being animated (eg., 500 pixels), and used a static JPEG background to fill in the remainder of the space?

As it turned out, encoding a 2048×700 video and positioning it like a background element – even including a slight parallax effect – was quite reasonable. Playback was flawless on modern laptops and desktops, and even a 2006-era 1.2 GHz Fujitsu laptop running WinXP was able to run the video at reasonable speed. Per rendering documentation from the Chrome team, <video> elements are automatically promoted to layers for the GPU where applicable and thus benefit from accelerated rendering. Due to the inline nature of the video, we excluded it from display on mobile devices, and show a static image to clients that don’t support HTML5 video.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the video was file size. In our case, the WebM-encoded video (supported natively in Chrome, Firefox, and Opera) was clearly able to optimize for the low amount of motion within the wide frame, as eight seconds of 2048×700 video at 24 fps resulted in a .webm file of only 900 KB. Impressive! By comparison, the H.264-encoded equivalent ended up being about 3.8 MB, with a matching data rate of ~3.8 mbps.

The “Justified” View

It’s worth mentioning that the Justified photos at the bottom of the page lazy-load in, and have been excluded from any additional display optimizations in this case. There is an initial spike with the render and subsequent loading of images, but things settle down pretty quickly. Blindly assigning translate-type transforms to the Justified photo container – a complex beast in and of itself – causes all sorts of rendering hell to break loose.

In Review

This article represents my findings and approach to getting GPU-accelerated compositing working for background images in the Webkit-based Chrome and Safari browsers, in May 2013. With ever-changing rendering engines getting smarter over time, your mileage may vary as the best route to the “fast path” changes. As numerous other articles have said regarding performance, “don’t guess it, test it.”

To recap:

  • Painting: Expensive. Repaints should be minimal, and limited to small areas. Reduce by carefully choosing layers.
  • Compositing: Good! Fast when done by the GPU.
  • Layers: The secret to speed, when done correctly. Apply sparingly.

References / further reading:

… And finally, did I mention we’re hiring? (hint: view-source :))

Slides from Velocity 2009

At Flickr Engineering our favorite thing is rainbows. But fast stable websites come a pretty close second. So last week some of us drove down to San Jose to take part in the 2009 O’Reilly Velocity conference.

The conference consists of two tracks, performance and operations. The attendance was a great mix of people working on optimizing the whole web stack – everything from the download size of CSS to the PUE of data centers. There were talks on automated infrastructure, Javascript, MySQL, front-end performance recommendations and CDNs, but the most significant theme was the direct business benefits that companies like Google and Microsoft are seeing from microsecond speed improvements on their sites.

Some of the most interesting sessions for for us were:

  • John Adams talking about Twitter operations (details , slides , video )
  • Eric Schurman and Jake Brutlag’s joint presentation about performance benefits seen at Google and Bing (details , slides , video )
  • Andrew Shafer’s discussion of Agile Infrastructure (details )
  • Adam Jacobs and Ezra Zygmuntowicz’s talk about Cloud Infrastructure (details )

John and I also gave a talk on how Flickr’s engineering and operations team work together to allow us to iterate quickly without causing stability problems. The full video is available, and here’s the slides:

10+ Deploys Per Day: Dev and Ops Cooperation at Flickr

View more presentations from John Allspaw .

Thank you to Jesse and Steve for putting together a great conference. We’re already looking forward to next year.