Anonymous user
User talk:McClaw: Difference between revisions
m
→Animated images
>McClaw |
>Abcboy |
||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
GIF files support only 256 colors, don't support partial transparency, but are supported on almost any browser. APNG files support all colors and partial transparency, but aren't supported in Chrome, IE, or Safari 7 and older. MNG files aren't supported by anybody. Partial transparency lets us display images on any background, as shown to the right. What should we do? Should we keep trying to use GIF even with the loss of quality? --[[User:Abcboy|Abcboy]] ([[User talk:Abcboy|talk]]) 12:39, 29 November 2014 (MST) | GIF files support only 256 colors, don't support partial transparency, but are supported on almost any browser. APNG files support all colors and partial transparency, but aren't supported in Chrome, IE, or Safari 7 and older. MNG files aren't supported by anybody. Partial transparency lets us display images on any background, as shown to the right. What should we do? Should we keep trying to use GIF even with the loss of quality? --[[User:Abcboy|Abcboy]] ([[User talk:Abcboy|talk]]) 12:39, 29 November 2014 (MST) | ||
:First, I suggest creating a category for animated images and tagging those so they're all in one place. Second, I believe all our animated images are done to conserve space by cycling through tools made with multiple materials. We could create static generic versions (blank black/white? rainbow?), place multiple images, or continue using animated images with associated loss of background and possible quality. Your conversion to a standard background is nice, but could be a problem with images that don't contrast enough. *sigh* I'd say convert to generic/silhouette images in PNG and make sure all versions are given as examples elsewhere in the article. --[[User:McClaw|McClaw]] ([[User talk:McClaw|talk]]) 09:57, 30 November 2014 (MST) | :First, I suggest creating a category for animated images and tagging those so they're all in one place. Second, I believe all our animated images are done to conserve space by cycling through tools made with multiple materials. We could create static generic versions (blank black/white? rainbow?), place multiple images, or continue using animated images with associated loss of background and possible quality. Your conversion to a standard background is nice, but could be a problem with images that don't contrast enough. *sigh* I'd say convert to generic/silhouette images in PNG and make sure all versions are given as examples elsewhere in the article. --[[User:McClaw|McClaw]] ([[User talk:McClaw|talk]]) 09:57, 30 November 2014 (MST) | ||
::The new standard background is a transparent color. The Item Infobox pages have a gradient applied so that the transparency shows through to the gradient. The reason partial transparency is good is so images like raw resin and epoxy can be displayed correctly instead of on a white background. It also might just be better to make the main image a collage of all of the types. --[[User:Abcboy|Abcboy]] ([[User talk:Abcboy|talk]]) 10:51, 30 November 2014 (MST) | |||