A couple of days ago a WP YouTube Lyte user asked me if Featured Video Plus and WP YouTube Lyte were compatible. It took me a day to find the answer (I first said “no”), but Featured Video Plus actually has a filter (get_the_post_video_filter) that allows one to override the code used to display the featured video. And after a bit of trial and error this is what I came up with;
If these requirements aren’t met, your visitors will see a Flash-based version of the YouTube video you specified.
As newTube.js is sort of a dirty hack which replaces the LYTE dummy player with an iframe with overflow:hidden, in which the full YouTube-page is carefully positioned to display only the player, there are some other caveats to take into account as well:
I’m a sucker for simple things and in my book, WordPress (the open source software) is a great example of a simple yet powerful solution for publishing on the web. The last few days I experienced their plugin-ecosystem to be just as simple and powerful.
Before you know it, you’ve got a bunch of real users (wp-youtube-lyte was downloaded 128 times in 2 days) who can rate your plugin and provide you with feedback. And every time you upload a new stable version via svn, a new zip-file is created and your users will get a notification in their wp-admin pages, allowing them to upgrade by simply clicking that upgrade link. Don’t you love it when a plan comes together?
But enough raving already, got to go create that admin-page for my plugin now, as requested by a user. I’m a sucker for real users!
wp-youtube-lyte plays nice with the great “Smart Youtube” plugin, in which case it will take care of the default embeds (httpv), while Smart Youtube will parse the other types (httpvh, httpvhd, httpvp, …).
There’s good and bad news in those figures. As could be expected the YouTube Flash embed doesn’t impact the rendering of the base page. But 2.6 seconds and 312KB just to display 2 video’s a visitor might not even bother to look at (I bet that the click-rate for embedded YouTube video is somewhere between 2 and 20%), that’s … sub-optimal?
(base) download complete: 0.324s for 4KB (which is marginally faster)
start render: 0.363s (again marginally faster)
full page download complete: 0.803s for 35KB (leaner, meaner and faster!)
The code that would have to be copy/pasted (multi-line for clarity):
So using LYTE you can embed YouTube in such a way that the amount of data, the total download time and the total rendering time are significantly lower, without loosing any functionality.
And this -to conclude this long post- is what LYTE looks like (soundtrack by Nôze – “Meet me in the toilet”, it’s Friday after all);