Re:Serve Videos Instead of GIFs
by chaosbutters314 on Saturday May 16, 2020 @10:47PM
(#23209083)
I disagree, the phone/laptop manufacturer will get blamed for bad battery drainage, not the app/website/media.
For bandwidth, I'm going to blame my ISP, Chrome, firefox, etc.
For the media (gif versus movie), I'm going to blame the website.
As a website operator, I feel a personal responsibility to consider how my choices affect those things, even if my users might incorrectly blame others instead of me.
Re:Serve Videos Instead of GIFs
by FalconSensei on Saturday May 16, 2020 @10:39PM
(#23209044)
Thank for you reply. And of course, you have a good point. If what is important to you is saving space and bandwidth, then serving videos is probably the best solution.
The irony is a modern gif filetype would be even better. Something that retained the advantages of gifs, but allowed for better compression.
We don't even need a new file type, we just need browsers to let us use video files like MP4 et al in IMG tags and give us gif-like behavior (muted, autostart, and loop).
I mean, I know everybody is really pumped about webGL and shadow DOMs and webcomponents and webASM, but I feel like the basic "html as document language" could use some loving to solve this.
This whole mess reminds me of SVG. I get that there are fantastic reasons why SVG has JavaScript and its own DOM and can pull in external resources, but sometimes we don't want a whole new framework for new forms of content, we just want an IMG.
They are definitely tradeoffs. At least for my personal website, the size disadvantage of GIFs still outweighs them, in my opinion. I think bandwidth usage and battery drainage are also worth thinking about on behalf of the user.