Have you considered the implications, for the device user, of having them autoplay on mobile devices? Have you done a more general search for this -- on Google, say. A major problem will be that having videos autoplay can quickly rack up costs -- this is why it usually requires a change in the device settings to make this happen -- see, for example here and here
Since it's only a snippet of 8 seconds without audio, I do think I've considered any implications, end-user, wise.
It is smaller in size than the animated-gif one.
Animated gif one cant produce the shades in my video correctly, hence video it is.
All I find on the internet, that it is simply not possible to autoplay (might have a bit of luck on iOS by using no audio in the vid).
Your link tells me only how to Turn Off Autoplay.
The short answer is, you can't. It is default off on all browsers in mobile size. There are no "on" switches for this, it would probably take a good bit of scripting to come up with a way around this. It's there for a reason, people don't want auto play things on their phones, it's annoying, takes up bandwidth and many times takes too long to load and messes up the loading speed of a web page. So ... no, in essence, unless you can find some super scriptor to do it, it cannot and should not be done. Obviously that must be the case if every single browser has initiated this "off" setting for mobile devices.
P.S. In case you were thinking that the bandwidth I mentioned was for the phone user it's not. It raises the bandwidth usage to the person who's website it is, and no matter what company tells you you get "unlimited" bandwidth, that is entirely not true. There are limitations depending on what you have on your site. Videos use a lot of bandwidth, sound as well, but not quite as much. These raise the problem of the site owner having to possibly get a larger hosting package to accommodate their usage.
For example: On a client's site, we had a video that did "NOT" have auto play on at all, in any size. We originally put it on the home page where he wanted it. His bandwidth usage went from a handful of MB to over 20 GB in 6 days. We changed the page it was on and it lowered it right back down. People were clicking that video constantly (it's a really nice video so yeah lol) and wracked up a lot of bandwidth usage.
All I find on the internet, that it is simply not possible to autoplay
Basically correct. The browser companies have gone to extreme lengths to stop websites from being able to autoplay media. There are forums out there where lots of hacky tricks have been devised to try and get around this. Most do not work, especially on iOS devices. Chrome uses a weird algorithm where it measures the amount of interaction a person has with a given site over a period of time, and if it passes a certain threshold, it allows some autoplay features. You can keep Googling and hunting around. You might get lucky. I doubt you'll get a solution here.
BTW, I tried your link and hit "contact" and did not see any video snippet. Also, just a thought, but if all you want to do is show an 8 second animation without sound, you could try using an animated .gif (which would not be blocked.) I use one on this site to create the "rippling water" effect. http://ajewelinthelotus.com/
There are numerous discussions over on StackOverflow about getting autoplay to work with slider revolution, and they do offer a non-Wordpress version that works with Jquery, so that might be an option for you? It seems silly for these browser companies to block muted videos that autoplay. I can't see how is that objectionable (other than maybe eating data on mobile plans?) As a designer, it's frustrating when companies arbitrarily force you to alter your vision "just because."
One thought I had (or maybe I read) was to have your background video display in an iframe from another page on your site, which would trick the browser into thinking the person has interacted with the site? Not sure if that would work.
This is one of the most disappointing, ignorant, and profoundly stupid, responses I've been been witness to on these forums.
Why disappointing? Because I have in the past been impressed by how valuable material from this author has been -- to the extent that if I had seen something from them I would have automatically read them thinking they were pretty likely to be worth my time. Obviously I've been incorrect in assuming this.
Why ignorant? Because the writer has failed to read read, understand, and take seriously, the many postings by other authors on the "correct" procedures to follow when using sliders with people advising "never put a slider on the home page" and "always put the viewing of the slider at the discretion of the viewer", and "leave the viewing at the pace of the individual viewer; as well as the time of viewing at the discretion of the viewer -- if it's worth viewing the viewer will come back to it when they decide they have the time, and frame of mind, to view it"
Why stupid? Because if you ignore the above recommendations, you'll VERY quickly alienate your viewers, or your potential viewers -- and that will make it less likely they'll make themselves available for you to make impressions on them in the future -- and in advertising (and we're all in "advertising" -- or trying to sell an idea to someone) -- it's key that you make as many impressions on your "market" as you can). Many potential customers will be lost if you try to control, rather than influence, their behaviour.
I second Jo's question. What are you ranting about Aussie???
Believe it or not, there is not just ONE correct way to build a website, and many people don't share your opinions about sliders, videos, etc, but that's really all beside the point.
If a person/client wants a video on their homepage, and they want it to play when someone visits their site, then we as website designers/builders/etc should be able to produce what the client wants. Screw "best practices" or what is best for advertising. If I want my website to play a video on page load, it's MY site, and I should be able to make that happen. Nobody is being forced to visit anyone's site, but if a person CHOOSES to visit my site, then they should accept the content that I've chosen to deliver. They're always free to leave the site. Browser companies are overstepping their bounds in decided what is "best" for everyone. The internet was designed to be a free space, not regulated by the whims of Google, or Mozilla, or Apple.
Agreed! What I tend to do is try to talk them out of whatever thing they want to do that isn't good for the visitors, but there's always that one client that wants it no matter what, and well, I'll do it if I have to because that's what I'm getting paid for. Most of the time my clients are pretty level headed and they trust my judgement on these things though.
Anyways, I'm still curious what you were going on about Aussie, I didn't see any bad posts here, nothing that was demeaning, nothing telling anyone they cannot ever do this, etc. Just a bunch of us telling the OP that it's turned off by the browsers, and that it takes some work to get around it if possible. Not sure why that is all bad to you.
As I'm getting older I'm learning that best practices are those that bring money to my bank account. And I learned to stop arguing with my customers when not required to.
So when a customer pays for my direction I'm happy to tell him then I don't suggest videos on the home page. And to disable all animations on a mobile browser. But when I'm just told to create a website with all the bell and whistles my customer likes, I just shut up and do my best to follow his direction.
I'm a pro, I do it for living. So my paycheck comes first, then all guidelines.
You all seem to have disappeared up some dark place. believing the sun shines out of there.
What you have to remember is that you're developing for other people, not just for developers like your coterie of friends.
Jo, I'm with you in your first response "What I tend to do is try to talk them out of whatever thing they want to do that isn’t good for the visitors".
There're more than enough developers, clearly, prepared to do whatever "the customer" wants.
And there're more than enough customers for me to make a comfortable living while I'm maintaining standards. I'm writing for a particular market segment.
Let's face it, if I'm developing for those customers who can't be bothered listening to me, they're in the "amateur" sector anyway.
For the big, corporate, clients -- clients most interested in maximising returns on money invested, those most prepared to learn what research has shown works most effectively -- I won't be using a "builder" program, like BSS, Mobirise, whatever, anyway.
There's a reason such programs are best for quick and dirty jobs
That's one kind of business philosophy. It doesn't happen to be mine, but if it works for you, great.
Nevertheless, the original ethos was that the internet was supposed to be a free and open place, where creators could deliver content on their own websites THEIR own way. Ideally, the web browser should be a neutral entity, not making decisions on what data gets delivered. The fair solution would have been to make blocking auto-playing media a user selectable option.
When a mere three companies can get together and decide they're going to restrict creators because they feel it's better for the internet as a whole, that above-described ethos of a free internet has taken a major blow. In a sense, this is a mild type of censorship. I find it especially disturbing that Mozilla went along with this.
So what will they choose to restrict next? It's a slippery slope from blocking one kind of content, to blocking all sorts of content.
Yeah, I agree totally Printninja, there's no reason at all that any browser should be making our decisions for us. Personally it's like telling me I'm not smart enough to make that decision on my own, when in fact I had already employed it long before the browsers had. Still, it should be our choice, not theirs. And the monopoly seems to be the ones making our decisions for us as usual. Big business gets their noses in there and decides how they want to make money and the rest of us have no choice in the matter.
@Aussie: You have a very closed minded idea of how a web design business works or should be implemented. Just my opinion of course, but I don't care if you're working for a small business or a large corporation, what they say goes regardless and if they argue anything at all, it has nothing to do with their business level it has to do with their lack of knowledge which is what you are there for. If they don't listen to you, then what? You tell your $50k or $100k client "oh well, sorry you're too small time for me"? Sorry, but that's just now how things work. It's not your site it's theirs, and if they want something, then it's your job to do what you can to provide for their expectations if you are not able to change their minds. I've only had 1 client that was not able to be talked out of something, and I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with their business sense, their knowledge or the level of their company's worth. It had more to do with another person that had their ear that was ignorant and telling them what to do and they listened because they worked for that company. Sweet and simple, you don't always have that power.
Just because they may be a big business, does not give them any insight into how a website does or should function. You give them much too much credit.
And what are you doing in here anyways? You've pretty much said you wouldn't ever use apps like this, and you've spelled out that you're only "big business" minded, so what are you bothering with this piddly little app for and making waves on this forum for if it's not something you will use anyways? I find it very annoying actually that you have the audacity to come in here requesting and almost demanding features while telling us you don't use this app.
Seriously, I don't use any other app and I do quite well for my clients and there's nothing "lower class" about the code this app gives you. It's cleaner than most other apps out there and more feature filled than most as well, while still remaining more user friendly than those others too. I most certainly don't use one app for my lower class clients and another for my higher class ones, sheesh who does that???