• deranger@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    147
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Native dark modes are better and have much less of a performance impact. It’s good as a stop gap though.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Native dark modes are better

      Agreed. Well, I don’t know if it’d deal with random images as well, as users can upload those.

      and have much less of a performance impact.

      For a number of sites, you can just get away with running Dark Reader in static mode and it works well enough. Considerably faster.

      EDIT: Actually, thanks for reminding me. I’ve never donated to Dark Reader, and it looks like they ask for a $10 donation if you use it regularly, and that plugin has dramatically improved my Web-browsing experience. Going to do that now.

    • hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Maybe. Does it make a big performance difference which css (dark reader or delivered by wiki) is used?

      Is it known how the default to dark mode setting is persisted if let’s say a plugin removed all the Wikipedia cookies on window close? A get or post parameter?

      Either way it’s a good thing that wiki offers a dark mode.

      • AProfessional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Dark reader is one of the heaviest extensions you use, lots of dom modifications. It also passes around far too much data between processes.

        • hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          lots of dom modifications

          That’s good to know. These modifications are needed to replace the style sheet details, I guess?

          passes around far too much data between processes.

          What does this mean? Do you have a link where I could read up on the details? Thanks.

          • AProfessional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Webextensions get their own webprocess as well as running in the website. I don’t have a link but if you read their source they just pass a lot of data to their process to determine things (last i looked some years ago).

            There is a trade off of executing more things on the site vs transferring a lot of data. Either way it’s a heavy extension.