TTEchidna

Unfortunately, we live in a part of the internet I have affectionately dubbed the "90s Technotrapped". Okay, I just made that up on the spot, but whatever. But they are a people who live with their parents, yet use outdated computer technology. 56K modems, Windows 98, Pentium 1s, and so on.

They believe that everything must cater to everyone, and the stunning number of them are why so many sites are behind the times, or have restrictions that can damage those who are in the majority. The only option for dealing with these most foul people, unfortunately, is for the webmasters to become ballsy and tell them to put up, pay up (for technology not from the 1990s), or shut the fuck up.

I have a feeling that APNGs will be vetoed when the time comes.

It's not "shitty outdated browsers" that's the problem. It's more like "nonstandard image format" that's the real problem. There's a very good reason for the lack of APNG support. It isn't a proper standard.

Internet Exploder? Then what about Google Chrome, which also doesn't support APNG? And IE9 does support roundycorners. If it's done in the standard way.

Besides, GIF files, well... you know, for sprites, they are adequate. When the sprites have no more than 15 colours per frame... yeah.

If you are concerned about the resulting image quality when shrunk, why not make it so that the image resizing is done by the browser itself on the client's PC?

Not to mention the existence of outdated PCs, as well as less capable hardware that can browse the Internet.

APNGs are a bad idea. Full stop. Done properly, GIFs can, and will work for sprites.

Maybe we should do a total conversion of all sprites to GIFs.

Just about every browser supports GIFs.

And what is the definition of "proper standard", may I ask?

TTE, you're taking people disagreeing with you far too personally. Seriously, you need to calm down and stop raging. You've been raging for 3 months non-stop, and it's not doing you any favours. There's no great conspiracy against you, as you seem to be thinking from, but your behaviour [i]is[/] turning off a lot of your supporters. Stop letting everything on the site bother you, and start focusing on your own projects, like getting the cries working.

APNG Fan, the PNG group officially rejected APNG as an official extension to PNG back in 2007, which has led it to not get widespread support. In many ways, this does mirror what happened with animated GIFs back in the old day. While that format eventually did get recognised and used by everyone, APNG hasn't reached that point yet. Like it or not, a significant percentage of our visitors are younger fans who are not able to upgrade their computer and/or browser (or even to install a browser which supports it on a computer which would be more than capable, because parents don't want them installing programs), and it doesn't make sense to punish them and harm their user experience.

As I already explained, it's possible (and quite simple) to implement fallback-to-gif for other browsers, so using APNG will not harm anyone.

Originally Posted by APNG_Fan

As I already explained, it's possible (and quite simple) to implement fallback-to-gif for other browsers, so using APNG will not harm anyone.

Can the MediaWiki software pull this off?

Probably. Here's the demo where animation works in all browsers, but looks better in Firefox and Opera:
http://animatedpng.com/index.php/apng-demo/

Also, you can create GIF backup from APNG using this:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/apng2gif/

Originally Posted by APNG_Fan

Probably. Here's the demo where animation works in all browsers, but looks better in Firefox and Opera:
http://animatedpng.com/index.php/apng-demo/

Also, you can create GIF backup from APNG using this:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/apng2gif/

We're talking about sprites. Binary transparency needed, and that's it. Not alpha.

Now to find something to batch-DL these pesky APNGs and convert them just in case.

People are seriously whining about this? :/

I'm stuck with IE because it's the only browser my mom likes, and the APNGs and roundies are fine with me as long as someone can see them. I think it's just the way that Pokemon fans are, they want to whine about everything. >.<

I pulled it off. All APNG sprites that don't exceed 120x120 are converted to GIFs, waiting to be uploaded. It's only a matter of time for the sprites to be replaced. 1807 of them.

And this is why I don't like gifs: people steal them from other sites, upload them to Archives, and then people yell at Bulbapedia's admins for not knowing where every single idiot user downloaded every single idiot image from.

Originally Posted by TTEchidna

And this is why I don't like gifs: people steal them from other sites, upload them to Archives, and then people yell at Bulbapedia's admins for not knowing where every single idiot user downloaded every single idiot image from.

How do you know that they are stolen?

What if they were originally GIFs, and then converted to APNGs because of some sort of policy?

Well... actually, you can say the same thing for everything else that can be copied.

It's not the matter of stealing. "Stealing" is irrelevant. We're talking about the use of GIFs to replace APNGs.

If you are against the use of GIFs because of stealing images from other sites, might as well as not upload anything. Especially when you can't verify the source.

Originally Posted by Naetoru Reshiramu

It's not the matter of stealing. "Stealing" is irrelevant.

"Stealing" is "stealing," to some sites, even if it's just a set of animated sprites.

Originally Posted by Naetoru Reshiramu

If you are against the use of GIFs because of stealing images from other sites, might as well as not upload anything. Especially when you can't verify the source.

There's a difference between having to take down a single screenshot because someone uploaded it without crediting or asking permission from the site that it came from, and having to take down an entire pokemon generation worth of sprites and having to find someone who can make remake them for us.

By the way, where did the APNGs come from, anyway?

I noticed that one of them is exact frame-to-frame from Arkeis.

Hmm... did we ask for permission from them?