New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Request: could the 500 page become non-blinking? #6060

Open
wimvanderbauwhede opened this Issue Dec 17, 2017 · 22 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@wimvanderbauwhede

wimvanderbauwhede commented Dec 17, 2017

I'm sorry but I find the blinking 500 page (oops.gif) extremely annoying. Could it please be replaced by a non-blinking image? Thank you!


  • [ x] I searched or browsed the repo’s other issues to ensure this is not a duplicate.
  • This bug happens on a tagged release and not on master (If you're a user, don't worry about this).

@wimvanderbauwhede wimvanderbauwhede changed the title from Request: could the 500 page become static? to Request: could the 500 page become non-blinking? Dec 17, 2017

@serin-delaunay

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@serin-delaunay

serin-delaunay Dec 21, 2017

Note: this issue was mentioned in the pull request which added this animation (#5099 (comment), animation at top of page), but the comment was ignored by both the author/merger and approver of the PR.

serin-delaunay commented Dec 21, 2017

Note: this issue was mentioned in the pull request which added this animation (#5099 (comment), animation at top of page), but the comment was ignored by both the author/merger and approver of the PR.

@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Cassolotl

Cassolotl Dec 21, 2017

This makes sense considering the "autoplay gifs" setting is set to "off" by default for accessibility reasons.

Cassolotl commented Dec 21, 2017

This makes sense considering the "autoplay gifs" setting is set to "off" by default for accessibility reasons.

@nightpool

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nightpool

nightpool Dec 21, 2017

Collaborator
Collaborator

nightpool commented Dec 21, 2017

@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Cassolotl

Cassolotl Dec 21, 2017

I'm not epileptic, but it makes my brain go blaaaeeeeururrughrghrghrgrh, and not just in an "I find this annoying" way. I'm also autistic, which might be part of that? I need gifs to stop playing for reasons other than vestibular disorder, which I attribute to being autistic.

Cassolotl commented Dec 21, 2017

I'm not epileptic, but it makes my brain go blaaaeeeeururrughrghrghrgrh, and not just in an "I find this annoying" way. I'm also autistic, which might be part of that? I need gifs to stop playing for reasons other than vestibular disorder, which I attribute to being autistic.

@clarcharr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@clarcharr

clarcharr Dec 22, 2017

I'm also autistic and it's generally just unpleasant to have stuff moving on the page like that.

Movement like the clouds on the front page is fine; movement like this is too much and IMHO shouldn't be there, GIFs turned on or off.

clarcharr commented Dec 22, 2017

I'm also autistic and it's generally just unpleasant to have stuff moving on the page like that.

Movement like the clouds on the front page is fine; movement like this is too much and IMHO shouldn't be there, GIFs turned on or off.

@clarcharr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@clarcharr

clarcharr Jan 5, 2018

I added a PR to make the animation static at #6189.

clarcharr commented Jan 5, 2018

I added a PR to make the animation static at #6189.

@ykzts

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ykzts

ykzts Jan 5, 2018

Collaborator

You can use Animation Policy (Google Chrome).

or, edit image.animation_mode to none (Firefox).

image

Collaborator

ykzts commented Jan 5, 2018

You can use Animation Policy (Google Chrome).

or, edit image.animation_mode to none (Firefox).

image

@serin-delaunay

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@serin-delaunay

serin-delaunay Jan 5, 2018

I don't know about Android Firefox, but Android Chrome doesn't allow extensions or provide any other way of blocking gifs.

serin-delaunay commented Jan 5, 2018

I don't know about Android Firefox, but Android Chrome doesn't allow extensions or provide any other way of blocking gifs.

@moggers87

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@moggers87

moggers87 Jan 5, 2018

@ykzts that would disable all animated gifs, which is not the issue here. This particular gif has only 4 frames but a lot of movement, which is really quite unpleasant for me (as with @clarcharr and @Cassolotl, I have an autism spectrum disorder).

Is there any reason this gif has so few frames? Frame 4 is almost a completely different image to the other 3 and I think this is part of the reason this animation is affecting me.

moggers87 commented Jan 5, 2018

@ykzts that would disable all animated gifs, which is not the issue here. This particular gif has only 4 frames but a lot of movement, which is really quite unpleasant for me (as with @clarcharr and @Cassolotl, I have an autism spectrum disorder).

Is there any reason this gif has so few frames? Frame 4 is almost a completely different image to the other 3 and I think this is part of the reason this animation is affecting me.

@charlag

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@charlag

charlag May 5, 2018

Hello
I totally understand that it may not seem like a problem but I believe that this is a really poor default accesibility choice.
I don't have any issues diagnosed but for me looking at the fast gif for me than two seconds is really unpleasant, I imagine it can be much worse for some people.
The thing is, you see this pic involuntary. You never opt into this. It's mostly happening when you don't expect it.

I think we should make a compromise and maybe make it animate on hover? I understand that it will require js but I think it wouldn't hurt much. It could be a nice detail, like a dinosaur in Chrome: when nothing works you can play with it by hovering-unhovering the image.

Thank you for considering this.

charlag commented May 5, 2018

Hello
I totally understand that it may not seem like a problem but I believe that this is a really poor default accesibility choice.
I don't have any issues diagnosed but for me looking at the fast gif for me than two seconds is really unpleasant, I imagine it can be much worse for some people.
The thing is, you see this pic involuntary. You never opt into this. It's mostly happening when you don't expect it.

I think we should make a compromise and maybe make it animate on hover? I understand that it will require js but I think it wouldn't hurt much. It could be a nice detail, like a dinosaur in Chrome: when nothing works you can play with it by hovering-unhovering the image.

Thank you for considering this.

@nightpool

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nightpool

nightpool May 5, 2018

Collaborator
Collaborator

nightpool commented May 5, 2018

@ThibG

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ThibG

ThibG Aug 13, 2018

Collaborator

@nightpool any progress on that?

Collaborator

ThibG commented Aug 13, 2018

@nightpool any progress on that?

@nightpool

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nightpool

nightpool Aug 13, 2018

Collaborator

you'll have to ask gargron, last I heard he was exploring commissioning the original animator to add a couple more frames.

Collaborator

nightpool commented Aug 13, 2018

you'll have to ask gargron, last I heard he was exploring commissioning the original animator to add a couple more frames.

@moggers87

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@moggers87

moggers87 Aug 14, 2018

Would a static image taken from one of the frames of the current GIF be acceptable?

This was proposed in #6189

moggers87 commented Aug 14, 2018

Would a static image taken from one of the frames of the current GIF be acceptable?

This was proposed in #6189

@Gargron

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Gargron

Gargron Aug 14, 2018

Member

I'm very sorry; I asked the artist, the artist didn't answer, it completely slipped my mind over time.

No, a still frame is not enough (and that PR picked the worst still frame, as well). Maybe we could add a bare minimum of inline JS to make it hover-on-play after all...

Member

Gargron commented Aug 14, 2018

I'm very sorry; I asked the artist, the artist didn't answer, it completely slipped my mind over time.

No, a still frame is not enough (and that PR picked the worst still frame, as well). Maybe we could add a bare minimum of inline JS to make it hover-on-play after all...

@connyduck

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@connyduck

connyduck Aug 15, 2018

Contributor

I recently commissioned art for Tusky, two images can be used as error images. You can use them for Mastodon as well if you want.
https://github.com/tuskyapp/artwork/blob/master/art/tusky_error.svg
https://github.com/tuskyapp/artwork/blob/master/art/tusky_offline.svg

Contributor

connyduck commented Aug 15, 2018

I recently commissioned art for Tusky, two images can be used as error images. You can use them for Mastodon as well if you want.
https://github.com/tuskyapp/artwork/blob/master/art/tusky_error.svg
https://github.com/tuskyapp/artwork/blob/master/art/tusky_offline.svg

@clarcharr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@clarcharr

clarcharr Aug 15, 2018

@Gargron I would have appreciated that feedback directly in the PR, especially if it had happened in the time frame where I was actually thinking about this.

I think that using the Tusky error artwork would be very appropriate. It's quite cute, and you have permission.

clarcharr commented Aug 15, 2018

@Gargron I would have appreciated that feedback directly in the PR, especially if it had happened in the time frame where I was actually thinking about this.

I think that using the Tusky error artwork would be very appropriate. It's quite cute, and you have permission.

@Krands

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Krands

Krands Sep 3, 2018

I read the whole issue. And someone explained to me what was the problem.

In the end, the whole animated image is not necessary. If it makes people sick or in distress because of the repetitive nature of the gif play, then the image should be changed to a still one for the sake of accessibility. A still image with the mascot looking at something that broke is not removing anything from the 500 error message. This error in particular is annoying, but you are adding more distress to people having vestibular disorder and/or facilitating sensory overflow for autistic people and everything else I don't know about.

You do need to step a bit back on your own expectations if you want to have your software more a11y compliant. Thus, a still image is enough, @Gargron.

Krands commented Sep 3, 2018

I read the whole issue. And someone explained to me what was the problem.

In the end, the whole animated image is not necessary. If it makes people sick or in distress because of the repetitive nature of the gif play, then the image should be changed to a still one for the sake of accessibility. A still image with the mascot looking at something that broke is not removing anything from the 500 error message. This error in particular is annoying, but you are adding more distress to people having vestibular disorder and/or facilitating sensory overflow for autistic people and everything else I don't know about.

You do need to step a bit back on your own expectations if you want to have your software more a11y compliant. Thus, a still image is enough, @Gargron.

@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Cassolotl

Cassolotl Sep 4, 2018

@Gargron

No, a still frame is not enough

No image at all would be better than something that is actively causing problems for disabled users.

Maybe we could add a bare minimum of inline JS to make it hover-on-play after all...

That would be better than no changes! I vote for this.

Cassolotl commented Sep 4, 2018

@Gargron

No, a still frame is not enough

No image at all would be better than something that is actively causing problems for disabled users.

Maybe we could add a bare minimum of inline JS to make it hover-on-play after all...

That would be better than no changes! I vote for this.

@jmfcodes

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jmfcodes

jmfcodes Sep 10, 2018

Is adding JS really necessary? This feels like overkill and may increase load times for users on older, slower devices or users with slower connections. Is a static image really that inconvenient for people who want lots of animation?

It's frustrating that Mastodon still isn't prioritizing accessibility after all this time, not even in this case when options and improvements have been offered over the last 8 months (like @clarcharr's PR and @connyduck's commissioned art).

Please prioritize accessibility.

jmfcodes commented Sep 10, 2018

Is adding JS really necessary? This feels like overkill and may increase load times for users on older, slower devices or users with slower connections. Is a static image really that inconvenient for people who want lots of animation?

It's frustrating that Mastodon still isn't prioritizing accessibility after all this time, not even in this case when options and improvements have been offered over the last 8 months (like @clarcharr's PR and @connyduck's commissioned art).

Please prioritize accessibility.

@theotix

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theotix

theotix Sep 11, 2018

There is a prefers-reduced-motion media query in css, but it's not very supported (and the better solution is still to remove the animation for everybody).

theotix commented Sep 11, 2018

There is a prefers-reduced-motion media query in css, but it's not very supported (and the better solution is still to remove the animation for everybody).

@raingloom

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@raingloom

raingloom Sep 19, 2018

I'm very sorry; I asked the artist, the artist didn't answer, it completely slipped my mind over time.

No, a still frame is not enough (and that PR picked the worst still frame, as well). Maybe we could add a bare minimum of inline JS to make it hover-on-play after all...

why not a non-auto-playing video?

raingloom commented Sep 19, 2018

I'm very sorry; I asked the artist, the artist didn't answer, it completely slipped my mind over time.

No, a still frame is not enough (and that PR picked the worst still frame, as well). Maybe we could add a bare minimum of inline JS to make it hover-on-play after all...

why not a non-auto-playing video?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment