GIFs are last millennium tech. 256 colour dithered video is shit. It's the digital equivalent of frickin' VHS. It's not even what the format was invented for, and it's been shoe-horned into a solution for web video as a patch-work stop-gap from the Internet's infancy. Now we've invented proper alternatives, nobody's using them, still dragging GIFs along. It's like the Imperial system not being dropped in favour of the Decimal - it's moronic. As a premiere tech site on the Web, can we set an example for the rest of the Internet and enforce no GIFs, making people use video convertors instead? Obviously a few small GIFs can make sense such as an animated diagram which compresses moderately efficiently (although even then animated PNG may be better). For all other clips, something like WebM should be used and enforced. The current no-limits policy on animated GIFs was set in 2006, before WebM and HTML5 existed. It's time for an update.
I feel terrible for saying this, but I haven't moved on from gifs (simple google search for something I look for and link it directly here) I don't mind using a new workflow, just curious as to what standard best practices are. And if we are doing the whole converting thing, is there a repository online that would have already done all this work for us?
Reddit suggestions GfyCat [t] - Originally made for GIF -> WebM conversion, now supports direct uploads (select the 'Simple Upload' option). 15 second duration limit, no filesize limit. Mixtape.moe - General purpose host, similar to Pomf.se. 100MB limit. WebMShare [t] - Host currently in beta, and supports optional auto play/looping/and muting, with the ability to caption submissions. 8MB limit. WebMLand - Host that also doubles as a WebM gallery. Unknown file size limit. Note: videos appear to be deleted after a couple months, likely due to hosting capacity. Uguu.se - General purpose temporary host (1 day expiration). 100MB limit. From the original creator of Pomf.se, useful for non-permanent uploads. HandBeezy - WebM/MP4 host with anonymous comment ability. Unknown file size limit. Note: the homepage always directs to the last user posted video (while NSFW uploads are hidden by default I wouldn't be surprised if some slip through). Includes text-based index of user uploaded videos by title. W0BM - Requires registration to upload AFAIK (haven't tested it yet). Unknown upload limit. Autoplays uploaded videos at random on the home page (unsure if NSFW videos are included in the default randomization but a heads up). Also includes an experimental live comments panel. Not tried any as I don't upload clips. Don't know what the workflow is for GIFs or how WebM compares. As I understand it, GfyCat converts to a WebM stream, and calls it a 'GIF'. The GIF is only served if the viewing platform doesn't support WebM.
I'm of the opinion file hosts should convert uploaded jiffs into better formats alongside the original and display those for browsers so capable. Jiffs are often fun and capable of illustrating a potent point quickly in a way that words often cannot, but when they also easily explode into several MBs just for a few seconds of low-res, bad quality animation it shows what a terrible format it really is...
I wonder if my browser can bring this up edit: hmm directly linking to '//gfycat.com/gifs/detail/FrayedAbandonedKoodoo doesn't seem to be happening
Seems to be a fault with the Media insert code on XenForo. Adding your video as Media produces this embedded code: Code: [MEDIA=gfycat]gifs[/MEDIA] It needs to be: Code: [MEDIA=gfycat]height=360;id=FrayedAbandonedKoodoo;width=640[/MEDIA]
That's the gist of it. I've noticed a bunch of younger folk use hard g. Am I so out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong.
Rys uses an embed plugin that might have an update for gfycat maybe? Also you can display forum bbcode within the CODE tag without resorting to squiggly brackets.
When I did my degree in Comp Sci, I had to write some report on some software or other. My tutor handed it back with nothing but English 'corrections', including a complaint I used the term 'squiggly brackets' instead of 'braces' - not a single remark about the actual content of my paper and the code quality. I responded with an email marking his marking, pointing out that 'squiggly brackets' is perfectly acceptable to describe them (they are squiggly in shape, and brackets), along with 'eg.' being permissible in contemporary language as well as the traditional 'e.g.' he 'corrected' me on, giving reference to OED pages supporting my choices. What a dumb waste of three years that was...
It joins the debate over PNG (pee-enn-gee or "ping"?) and SQL (ess-queue-ell or sequel?) in the anals of history.
I actually hunted down the truth to that and it's even funnier than I thought. The person who created the format wants it to be pronounced "jiff" but the preponderance of people seem to pronounce it "gif". So there really isn't a correct way to pronounce it, you can argue either and get away with it.