/operate/ - Endchan Operations

Non animated. Browsers are such bloat these days, it's easier on those with shit hardware and also consumes less bandwidth.

Personally though, I don't care.

 >>/4047/
For me the problem with gifs is only the size. So I think a reasonable thing to do would be to put a limit on the size of animated thumbnails. If the scaled gif would be larger than a given threshold then just use a static thumbnail instead. Otherwise, animated thumbnails are fine.

A good thing about animated thumbnails is that they prevent hiding "potentially-unpleasant" content behind a beguiling cover.

146238562764... png
(357.25 KB, 540x780)

 >>/4047/
dont care
just consider: could it ever be a problem as far as server load and available bandwidth is concerned?

 >>/4047/

> The only way I can make it configureable for NON-JS would to be to require a log in for setting storage and I don't think any one wants to have to log in to get their settings. Also let me know if I'm wrong on that too.

I wouldn't mind logging in if it meant retaining my settings. As it is I have to reset the theme each time I clear all my history.

doesn't matter to me, but non animated would be best. If you really want to see it, open it.

 >>/4079/
might be a viable solution for all.

 >>/4079/
I am against this

an account for settings is not the solution. nonJS users are used to not getting "the best" in favor of security and performance. In that line, performance should be value over have pre-animated gifs. Make gifs wait until they are clicked to load. 

Accounts are just another inconvenience that misses the point of an imageboard.

 >>/4131/
at least he is providing you with this thing called "choice"

shrug jpg
(70.34 KB, 520x592)

My browser doesn't even support images.

I prefer animated gifs. If they get distracting I can stop them on my end.

Just post >>>/apng/ instead from now on tbh.

Thank GNU jpg
(55.38 KB, 500x375)

 >>/4149/
Maybe there is hope for us after all...

Why do you need accounts? What's stopping you from storing it in cookies?

 >>/4162/
> cookies
> loggin in
Why not have none?

 >>/4162/
For some reason, I thought we need JS for cookies to work but we don't. So I'll pursue this direction and unsticky this thread for now.

 >>/4047/
Animations are visual noise and although it's nice I don't need to click on them I really don't need to see them all the time.

In fact I just realized how I can fuck with people in here, flashing Spiderman.

bump to save

you are doing something really STUUUUUUUUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the "GIF" is over 1MB, render to .mp4. All browsers still first frame display of the video before "play". everyone is doing this for beyond blatant reasons like JPEG became the web standard. Webm encoded AC1 is competing for this status, like opus won the audio lossy debate. Javashit will always be javashit. It should have never existed.

how about fixing the fucking del button for non-js users

 >>/6291/
That's a good point

mothra on 9front wouldnt load the gifs anyways unless you explicitly download them and pass them to gif or possibly thru plumbing