| « Prev | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Next » |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:02
•
by
LightStyx
(unregistered)
|
|
First...
|
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:05
•
by
See Sharp
(unregistered)
|
|
if (img.src.indexOf("First")!=-1) {
img.src="Second" ... |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:05
•
by
Addison
(unregistered)
|
|
*claps slowly*
At first I thought "well maybe they didn't want to use .gifs. Then I realized that they were using them anyway. Plus you just KNOW someone spent ll afternoon making those 4 images. And they probably had the experience to make them into a .gif. I guess when some people get an idea in their head about how to fix something nothing will stop them. Not even many many CPU cycles! |
|
Now for the comment...
here's an easy way around that... just create the gif animation in GIMP as one file then stick it in there. Why would one need programming to animate a gif when they themselves are already animated? |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:06
•
by
Addison
(unregistered)
|
|
Nooo, I made the infamous "didn't close quotes grammar mistake.
|
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:08
•
by
illtiz
(unregistered)
|
Is it me or does the article point that out itself? But kudos on being Fist. |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:15
•
by
Bobbo
|
Hang on, doesn't it say that in the article? |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:16
•
by
Whole Wheat Noodles
(unregistered)
|
Wow. You do realise the purpose of this site? |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:17
•
by
Zhango!
(unregistered)
|
|
...but I have animated GIFs shut off in my browser, so there!
Which reminds me, he forgot the code for what to do if JavaScript is shut off. |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:18
•
by
HVS
(unregistered)
|
|
Actually, there is a perfectly good reason to do this. If you have a "report running" page that has been submitted, Firefox will often stop all running animations on the page. This is not a problem in IE. By doing it with javascript, it avoids this problem.
|
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:20
•
by
kaspar
(unregistered)
|
|
iframe, with meta refresh tag and some serverside mechanism to determine the next picture :).
|
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:21
•
by
illtiz
(unregistered)
|
Come to think of it, the article mentions the same thing already. |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:22
•
by
whatever
(unregistered)
|
O....M......G......!!!! You submit a 'first post' which is soooo lame it's ludicrous, and then 4 minutes later post a comment that is spelled out right there in the article. Wow. |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:25
•
by
Run This
(unregistered)
|
Remind me again why we need that cute dancing cartoon? Oh yeah it is to reassure the timid little untrainable luser that his precious report is still running. Even if it isn't. Damn lying GUI designers. Hey but at least it's colorful. |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:27
•
by
LightStyx
(unregistered)
|
... it's to be the 1st poster, right? |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:27
•
by
Peter
(unregistered)
|
animFrame = animFrame % 6 + 1; should be: animFrame = (animFrame + 1) % 6; |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:31
•
by
illtiz
(unregistered)
|
That's the common thing to do, but the index is supposed to be [ 1 .. 6 ] not [ 0 .. 5 ] here. |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:32
•
by
Ironic
(unregistered)
|
|
The ajaxload.info site is broken - I get stuck with this crappy loading animation whenever I try to click something.
|
|
I see the WTF. They're passing a string to setTimeout. They should pass a function object, so it doesn't have to recompile the code every 200 ms:
setTimeout(Animate, 200)Or, even better, they could call setInterval once and it will automatically reschedule the timer. I hate when people don't take the time to read the API documentation. |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:36
•
by
cdosrun
|
Check out http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Technically,-Its-Still-GIF-Animation.aspx for an easy alternative to animated GIFs |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:37
•
by
Jay
(unregistered)
|
I think I read something in the article that says something similar to this... CAPTCHA: persto (damn those typos >.< ) |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:38
•
by
illtiz
(unregistered)
|
Thanks! Also, more useful information and links can be found at http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/Technically,-Its-Still-GIF-Animation.aspx |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:45
•
by
Ancient_Hacker
(unregistered)
|
|
Ah, no, the real underlying problems are much deeper than that. They're checking for the existence of one snippet of text, then building a path using part of the name, and by induction guessing the next name, then loading an image and not checking to see if it actually was there to load and it did load.
|
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:45
•
by
Ted
(unregistered)
|
Thanks! I was trying to remember where it was I read about this and could only vaguely rememebr a TDWFT article... |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:45
•
by
J D
(unregistered)
|
|
document.getElementById() ? More cycles wasted!
I particularly love that it has no exit condition. Anything that's worth doing, is worth doing FOREVER! |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:47
•
by
M C Spanner
(unregistered)
|
or use the animated gif and re-set the source of the image on submit and it'll keep going |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:47
•
by
PSWorx
|
A circular reference! :O I hope the forum's garbage collector can handle that... |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:51
•
by
50% Opacity
(unregistered)
|
So you won't have to search long, I think this comment sums it up pretty nicely: http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/Technically,-Its-Still-GIF-Animation.aspx#252324 |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:56
•
by
Smash King
|
And there's another useful option in that article's comments, posted by LightStyx (IIRC). |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:58
•
by
illvm
(unregistered)
|
|
TRWTF is they are using eval in the setTimeout() function. Instead of calling setTimeout("Animate()", 200) they should be calling setTimeout(Animate, 200). Oh... and using globals... and not caching the img element... and in the first version not using switch case. Maybe the original code was to support animated PNGs in a browser that *still* doesn't support them.
|
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 09:58
•
by
mbvlist
|
I see a lot of garbage in the comments, so I assume it's broken anyway |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 10:00
•
by
Ted
(unregistered)
|
...or old faithful google yields some good results (first listing) |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 10:08
•
by
another guy
(unregistered)
|
|
Is it Firefox that stops the animations? I thought I had that problem in IE but not Firefox. It has been a while though.
|
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 10:10
•
by
notromda
|
Be careful with the code in that link - the whole thing could have been replaced by an animated gif. |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 10:10
•
by
Wyrd
(unregistered)
|
Yeah, I'm with you. If you're gonna go to all the trouble of a progress bar or a "working..." message, it oughta be at least loosely tied to the actual progress of the process. That way it's not lying. The article links to a site that will create animated gifs of false progress indicators. The animatied gif progress indicators... they do nothing! -- Furry cows moo and decompress. |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 10:16
•
by
justsomedude
(unregistered)
|
|
Cognos BI?
|
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 10:17
•
by
J D
(unregistered)
|
Or animated JPEGs! As a low-tech alternative to embedded video. 5 frames per second!
I'd agree that it's a bad idea, but probably the overhead is negligible, and modern JS implementations will optimise it away for you. Not really a WTF in itself. I'd say TRWTF is that they're not using an array of image filenames or at least clearly defined bounds in the original version: adding a frame in the original would mean adding two lines, which probably did happen at some point. It's pretty odd that each cycle lasts exactly 6/5 of a second. |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 10:24
•
by
HVS
(unregistered)
|
I didn't know that. I'll have to give it a try. Thanks. |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 10:30
•
by
Andy Goth
|
You mean, like this?
|
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 10:31
•
by
diaphanein
(unregistered)
|
agreed. +1 fail. |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 10:33
•
by
Mr B
|
Obvious troll...is obvious. |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 10:33
•
by
Anonymouse
(unregistered)
|
|
Google actually does exactly this for those little animated emoticons you get in GMail Chat. Maybe there's a reason ...?
|
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 10:33
•
by
Ken B
(unregistered)
|
Well that's simple enough. Just use if ( javascriptEnabled() ) |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 10:36
•
by
SR
(unregistered)
|
|
Nice effet! Care to share the code?
|
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 10:41
•
by
waldo
(unregistered)
|
Actually, there's a pretty good reason not to use setInterval http://ejohn.org/blog/how-javascript-timers-work/ other than that, it would have only made sense if it was using a single image containing several sprites for the animation, otherwise, it's a WTF however you rewrite it (like they did on http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/Technically,-Its-Still-GIF-Animation.aspx) |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 11:00
•
by
pjt33
|
|
Andy Goth, how did you embed the JavaScript to do that animation?
|
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 11:00
•
by
Fast Eddie
(unregistered)
|
|
I prefer to use animated JPEGs. The compression is better and the transition more seamless.
|
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 11:00
•
by
JG
(unregistered)
|
|
There seems to be more WTF's in the comments then there were in the article :S
|
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 11:06
•
by
lol
(unregistered)
|
Spoiler: LightStyx is a troll the likes of which we haven't seen since TopCod3r |
Re: Technically, It's Still GIF Animation
2009-03-30 11:18
•
by
Jim
(unregistered)
|
|
WTF attract WTF...
|
| « Prev | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Next » |