Yea, you heard right, there is such this an Animated PNG image O.O
I didn't even know it existed until i saw an animated PNG on an imageboard which i learned about it there.

Wikipedia Page on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APNG
A program which you can make/edit Animated PNG (png/apng) images (japng)
http://www.reto-hoehener.ch/japng/

Only browsers that support Animated PNGs so far are Firefox and Opera ^.^

I didn't even know they even existed!
I've seen people rename a .gif image as something else like a jpg or something, but it still keeps the gif header in the file even tho the extension was changed.

these animated PNG images have png in the header + the transparency of them is clear as a PNG without the blockyness that an animated gif normally has ^.^
the animations can actually have opacity to them rather than just a plain solid background with no fading gradients.

take a look at the Wikipedia page's example of the transparent on the checkered background.
Animation with PNG transparency quality!!! ^.^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Animated_PNG_example_bouncing_beach_ball.png

I've tested out the japng program to see it in action, and it works wonders!
I would post the image link of the small animation i made with a fading animation on it, but it advertises another forum on it.

Just make each individual frames for an animation in Photoshop or whatever with a transparent background for each of the frame images and then just import them into japng, set the frames to the millisecond speed for each frame or apply the same speed to all so it doesn't take forever.
then save with a .png extension, and then you have an animated png.

Animated PNGs are awesome!
:)


Edit (12/15/09):

I replaced my current avatar with an Animated PNG Avatar ^.^
So the animation will only be visible in Firefox or Opera.

In the process, I also found out that Photobucket doesn't like Animated PNGs. as they become still/not-animated when you upload them there >.<
Tinypic.com on the other hand does accept Animated PNGs tho, so that's a good thing ^.^


Here are the Examples for size comparisons.

Note: The GIF's animation image is slightly different since i fixes the blood drip in the PNG version.
GIF - 4.85 KB (4963 bytes)
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a85/ElderKain/Avatars/100x70UminekoEKavy_ANI.gif

PNG - 9.56 KB (9786 bytes)
http://i49.tinypic.com/20goeua.png

so on average, the Animated PNGs are around twice the size of Animated GIFs.
I know it wasn't a good example with the smooth edge images instead of the pixel/sprite avatar I'm using, but still it's an ok comparison.

You think that's cool, look at MNGs. Rather than hacking the PNG format, MNGs are designed to be animated.

Everything still pales in comparison to SVGs, though, as they can be animated, scaled dynamically without pixelation, and is a very lightweight format.

You think that's cool, look at MNGs. Rather than hacking the PNG format, MNGs are designed to be animated.

Everything still pales in comparison to SVGs, though, as they can be animated, scaled dynamically without pixelation, and is a very lightweight format.

True, but can thoes be widely used to the general online user like normal GIFs, JPGs, or PNGs that are already out there?
Even Google image searching doesn't pick up on MNG or SVG, but it will pick up on a PNG even if it's been altered to an animated type.

:shifty:

If Internet Explorer doesn't support it, I won't use it. Not for me (I use Opera) but for the great amount of people who use IE.

If Internet Explorer doesn't support it, I won't use it. Not for me (I use Opera) but for the great amount of people who use IE.
And that's your opinion on that matter.

Personally I prefer Firefox over IE due to the fact that Firefox doesn't have many bad spyware/viruses attacks that attack it in comparison to IE.
+ IE lags my computer too much by using more memory of my computer than Firefox so I can multitask more.

:heh:

That's not the point. I don't use IE myself either (although I'm never going back to that POS Firefox... 340 MB memory usage wtf?). Most people in this world use IE. If I were to use stuff that IE doesn't support, over 70% of the people on the web wouldn't be able to see it properly.

That's not the point. I don't use IE myself either (although I'm never going back to that POS Firefox... 340 MB memory usage wtf?). Most people in this world use IE. If I were to use stuff that IE doesn't support, over 70% of the people on the web wouldn't be able to see it properly.
that was the memory leak problem in Firefox 2 & 2.5
It's been fixed in Firefox 3. Right now I have 8 active tabs on Firefox and i'm only at 90MB Memory usage usage

Then say in the post that the image requires either Firefox or opera to see the animation.
That's why most sites which support firefox usually say best viewed in firefox.

the PNGs are visible in all other browsers, it's just only the first frame is visible and not animated when viewed in other browsers.

:think:

Then say in the post that the image requires either Firefox or opera to see the animation.
That's why most sites which support firefox usually say best viewed in firefox.

the PNGs are visible in all other browsers, it's just only the first frame is visible and not animated when viewed in other browsers.
Still, if you're making a pro website or something, this isn't acceptable. You can't just tell half of your viewers to go download FF if they want to see your page. =P
And yes, I use FF. I wish POS IE would catch up with it or die, so web designers could use cool things like animated PNGS, but until that happens, there's not much we can do about it.

Most animations on websites are flash nowadays anyway.

But they don't have to have FF to view sites with Animated PNGs.
That's why in the scripting you have Browser checks, and if they are using a browser other than FF or Opera, they would be redirected to a page that uses animated GIF format.

As for the use of flash websites, there are lots of security holes with that, becasue sometimes flash can install unknown elements without a person's knowledge (Depending on their computer's security) Also Flash Animations use more memory to run than use of animated images like GIF or Animated PNG.
More people use Flash when it comes to interaction or special effects, but are thoes really needed on a website? That's just for looks, but thoes looks don't really fit with good website standards.

It's best to stick with Still images, becasue animations can distract people who browse website, but the use of animations can add some flare to a webpage.

As for the browsers when it comes to webdesign, that's gonna be fixed in the future as well with HTML5 when it comes out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5
the incompatible browser webpage features/styles will be pretty much the same on all browsers so the browser compatibilities with webdesign will be very similar.

Still that doesn't deal with the fact that Animated PNGs work only on Firefox and Opera.
Like I said earlier, PNGs which are Animated, on the non-compatible browsers, only the first frame of the animation will show up on them.
So in that situation, that's why a "Best Viewed in Firefox or Opera" message somewhere would be sufficient, that way people know that the use of Firefox and Opera browsers show the maximum effect for browsing according to that website's standards/design.
Or use browser redirect scripting which i mentioned above.

^.^

that was the memory leak problem in Firefox 2 & 2.5
It's been fixed in Firefox 3. Right now I have 8 active tabs on Firefox and i'm only at 90MB Memory usage usage

The leak still exists. Run firefox idle without updating your addons for about a day. You'll see your memory spike hundreds of megabytes. Another path to see this is to keep firefox open for three days. Again, fun stuff happens.


Then say in the post that the image requires either Firefox or opera to see the animation.
That's why most sites which support firefox usually say best viewed in firefox.

THE PLAGUE!


the PNGs are visible in all other browsers, it's just only the first frame is visible and not animated when viewed in other browsers.

I actually see this as a possible security exploit; as big as sharing illegal content in a hidden rar file behind a picture used in ebaums world. File standards should be just as they sound: Standards.




Still, if you're making a pro website or something, this isn't acceptable. You can't just tell half of your viewers to go download FF if they want to see your page. =P
And yes, I use FF. I wish POS IE would catch up with it or die, so web designers could use cool things like animated PNGS, but until that happens, there's not much we can do about it.

Actual IE is getting there. With IE8, a lot of the inconsistencies have been fixed. The problem is that IE is still stuck with the required backwards compatibility that everyone expects from windows (hence why there's so many different rendering modes).


Most animations on websites are flash nowadays anyway.

Soon to be replaced with Silverlight or the new revision of ECMAScript.


As for the use of flash websites, there are lots of security holes with that, becasue sometimes flash can install unknown elements without a person's knowledge (Depending on their computer's security)

And having a PNG file be animated when they're not supposed to be? Just because it can be animated does not mean that it cannot run rogue code. This is a double standard.


Also Flash Animations use more memory to run than use of animated images like GIF or Animated PNG.
More people use Flash when it comes to interaction or special effects, but are thoes really needed on a website? That's just for looks, but thoes looks don't really fit with good website standards.

You are the plague on why cross browser support has not been realized. There are many reasons why animations need to be rendered in flash. User interaction is a big one. The other big one is the complexity to adhere to a standard which does not provide the utilities necessary to render high performance graphics. Do you see anyone writing video games in assembly anymore? No. Why? It's just too dang hard to do.

And why do you question the content that's placed on a website? Sounds to me like you're a Wikipedia editor that likes to start discussions that don't need to happen. Flash is a standard. In fact, it's the second standard right now for high data processing on the web. The only one that is above it is Java, and that's so much of a hog, that it's almost a given that developers would use flash instead.


As for the browsers when it comes to webdesign, that's gonna be fixed in the future as well with HTML5 when it comes out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5
the incompatible browser webpage features/styles will be pretty much the same on all browsers so the browser compatibilities with webdesign will be very similar.

Perhaps you never understood the meaning of a standard. HTML 4 was supposed to correct all the wrongdoings of HTML 3.2, as well as eliminate Gofer. Look where that ended up. This is a vicious cycle that will never be solved until one unified browser is used (which will be never; so we'll have to live with it as users).


Still that doesn't deal with the fact that Animated PNGs work only on Firefox and Opera.
Like I said earlier, PNGs which are Animated, on the non-compatible browsers, only the first frame of the animation will show up on them.
So in that situation, that's why a "Best Viewed in Firefox or Opera" message somewhere would be sufficient, that way people know that the use of Firefox and Opera browsers show the maximum effect for browsing according to that website's standards/design.
Or use browser redirect scripting which i mentioned above.

Give me some bug spray to get rid of the pests!

Cross browser support must be transparent in today's web environment. It was about four years ago that the dreaded words of "works best with firefox" or "IE" have been classified as both taboo and lazy. The number of utility configurations that exist in web browsers today justify this claim.

If you ever meet a person that believes that the separation of sites by browser type is a good idea, walk away; especially since today's world is built off of template engines and utterly fantastic separation of content and style.


Please tell me that you're not or not planning to be a web designer. If you are, I recommend a strong restructure of your base knowledge, lest you'll continue to pollute the web development world with such atrocious claims.

Like all other new tech out there & new creations there is always the negative people. Why are people so negative about Animated PNGs here...
I mentioned this on 2 other forums, and everyone else saying that it's neat and such.

Why can't people be positive...

:huh:

Because I've been trained in network security and in software development. Things like this are not supposed to happen, and when they do, we're supposed to kill them, or tell people to start over.

Because I've been trained in network security and in software development. Things like this are not supposed to happen, and when they do, we're supposed to kill them, or tell people to start over.

If it wasn't suppose to happen, then why has Mozilla accepted to be allowed in their programming.
Because it's the wave of the future.
If Animated PNGs came out before Animated GIFs would you be saying the same thing? becasue the same thing is happening with Animated PNGs

GIFs were originally static images until Netscape created the Animated GIF format which uses multiple block sectors in the GIF file to make it animated. That was spread to be standards to be allowed in other browsers.
It's pretty much the same thing with Animated PNGs, its just a newer format of the PNG image that uses the same principles as Animated GIFs but has 24-bit image quality and 8-bit transparency which is a lot clearer than Animated GIFs.

:\

And did you know that Mozilla was Netscape? How interesting that Netscape would adopt a hacked format, and then Mozilla do the same.

If people want a new animated PNG format, they should adopt the format that was designed to perform this task, the MNG. APNG is just a bandaid over another standard. Simple an clean.

And did you know that Mozilla was Netscape? How interesting that Netscape would adopt a hacked format, and then Mozilla do the same.

If people want a new animated PNG format, they should adopt the format that was designed to perform this task, the MNG. APNG is just a bandaid over another standard. Simple an clean.

yea, but try viewing MNG images in your browser... it just don't work for every1... unless they download a plugin or some viewing software...

here is some MNG examples
http://www.libmng.com/MNGsuite/

Why download an extra program or plugin to view a MNG image when PNG is supported by all browsers already...
Animated PNGs still load in the other browsers other than Firefox or Opera, but still they show the first frame of the animation in them...
MNG it just don't cut it becasue it hasn't been officially implemented into browsers.

Why wait months or years until something like that can be officially implemented into a browser when the Animated PNGs can be used at this moment.

:shifty:

Soon to be replaced with Silverlight or the new revision of ECMAScript.
The only sites I've seen using Silverlight have been Microsoft ones...
So what's Silverlight? A better Flash? =)

The only sites I've seen using Silverlight have been Microsoft ones...
So what's Silverlight? A better Flash? =)Silverlight is for people who want to pay more money to Microsoft to do the same thing that Flash does.*

For a free and open alternative, check out what JavaScript can do nowadays (http://www.chromeexperiments.com/)! If you intend to dive in and start writing code for web browsers RIGHT NOW, I'd recommend that you have a look at something like SproutCore (http://www.sproutcore.com/). (the SproutCore demos (http://demo.sproutcore.com/) are pretty cool too)

* loool no

Lol, Dark Bring, sometimes you are just being silly (and I'm being nice here).

Silverlight is better for streaming content than Flash. A lot of Dutch sites use it already.

Flash is nice for interactive stuff like games but for streaming media it's just... meh

Haha M you are such a party pooper. Down with APNG!

I'm really excited for Silverlight to become more mainstream, really great framework there.

I've updated the first post with an exit to show some examples between an Animated GIF & Animated PNG.

:think:

Apparently Silverlight is also more open than Flash. MS has opened up the specifications so that the OS community can create their own version (moonlight). Linux users are still depending on Adobe to release Flash for Linux once in a while :/

edit: Elderkain, what's the use of having an APNG version of your avatar? It has so few colours that GIF could easily cope. That's just using APNG for the sake of using APNG, and that's just plain stupid.

"Oh, let's use something that doesn't work for everyone for the sake of using it, even though the alternative would work just as well and would work for everyone"

APNG is only good when the image actually uses more than 256 colours. Other than that, GIF could easily cope.

http://osflash.org :\


Silverlight is better for streaming content than Flash.

What is better? For most content-related applications this is 100% equitable to DRM support. Silverlight, for a time, had better native (i.e. out-of-the-box API) support for various DRM functions, and backing of some of MS's existing platforms: IIS & PlayReady DRM as well as development tools like Blend and Visual Studio.

But now the arms race is on:

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200909/AdobeUnveilsAdobeFlashAccess2.0.html

http://www.betanews.com/article/Silverlight-4-to-do-for-PCs-what-HD-DVD-couldnt/1252518510

Most animations on websites are flash nowadays anyway.

Didn't it start switching over to jquery & ajax for a more efficient animation feel to websites? I remember flash was a bandwidth hog, and although jquery doesn't offer you that much freedom in terms of animation, it seems to be best with websites that wants animation and interactivity.

How does Ajax add to the animated feel of a website? We're talking images here, not the website interface

How does Ajax add to the animated feel of a website? We're talking images here, not the website interface

For a free and open alternative, check out what JavaScript can do nowadays (http://www.chromeexperiments.com/)!

EDIT: Check out this Breakout clone (http://billmill.org/static/canvastutorial/)!

EDIT EDIT: See the wonders of HTML5 Canvas! (http://www.mrspeaker.net/dev/parcycle/)

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Javascript Wolfenstein! (http://www.nihilogic.dk/labs/wolf/)

EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT!!!! A gazillion JavaScript games! (http://www.javascriptgaming.com/)

That stuff ain't compatible with IE though. No of course, for OS junkies like Darkbring that doesn't matter, but to Average Joe who just wants to use the internets and doesn't care about these so-called standards, it appears as something broken :P

That's what I mean, are you gonna use something only purists who use Firefox or Opera can see, or are you gonna make something that's viewable by everybody?

for OS junkies like Darkbring that doesn't matter
Doesn't matter to me, either, and I don't consider myself any sort of computer expert...
And what's wrong with making something only for purists? You don't see game companies downgrading all their games so they can play on the Wii, 360, and PS3 all with the same build, right? Average Joe should use a browser that supports the sites he wants to view, I think.

And hey, maybe if more people start using these special standards, IE will be forced to catch up? =D

Doesn't matter to me, either, and I don't consider myself any sort of computer expert...
And what's wrong with making something only for purists? You don't see game companies downgrading all their games so they can play on the Wii, 360, and PS3 all with the same build, right? Average Joe should use a browser that supports the sites he wants to view, I think.

And hey, maybe if more people start using these special standards, IE will be forced to catch up? =D

I agree with Hopeless. But it also crystallizes to an argument of merit vs. popularity; where you could either be proud that you did something the 'right way,' or you can dumb everything down so everyone has the ability to use it. In most cases, popularity wins because websites and animations are for viewing, showcasing, or making money, and none of that does much if less then 50 % of a population can even access whatever.

I blame IE for hindering development. I may not be an expert, but my uncle builds interfaces for cooperate sites, not even consumers, and he says his work would be much easier if he didn't have to cater to the few in the tech cooperate field who haven't upgraded from IE.

I agree with Hopeless. But it also crystallizes to an argument of merit vs. popularity; where you could either be proud that you did something the 'right way,' or you can dumb everything down so everyone has the ability to use it. In most cases, popularity wins because websites and animations are for viewing, showcasing, or making money, and none of that does much if less then 50 % of a population can even access whatever.
Indeed. For most companies, ignoring IE when building a website isn't feasible. If I were to make a website, it'd be for an audience that didn't use IE anyway, though, so I might be able to do it.
Even Microsoft is forcing users to install Silverlight to view some of their websites, but the only websites I've seen from them that use Silverlight are tech-related ones. Basically, they know the particular audience they're aiming for wouldn't mind downloading the extra plug-in. (Ironically, this is probably the same audience that would never use IE. XD )

That's what I mean, are you gonna use something only purists who use Firefox or Opera can see, or are you gonna make something that's viewable by everybody? Let me start by pointing out how Microsoft doesn't intend to "make something that's viewable by everybody".


http://grab.by/1kSr
(click to embiggen) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/robotjohnny/3629069606/sizes/o/)


That stuff ain't compatible with IE though.

That's what I mean, are you gonna use something only purists who use Internet Explorer or Silverlight can see, or are you gonna make something that's viewable by everybody?

People who want to "make something that's viewable by everybody" follow web standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards) instead of using proprietary extensions. Microsoft doesn't (http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/10/05/distributed-unicorns-and-ponies).

Instead of making "something that's viewable by everybody" Microsoft would rather that people be locked into using their product (e.g. Internet Explorer, Silverlight).

If your browser platform follows the web standards, then all of "that stuff" (http://forums.ichigos.com/showpost.php?p=437936&postcount=26) will be available for free, without Silverlight. And Microsoft doesn't want that.

EDIT: Check out this Breakout clone (http://billmill.org/static/canvastutorial/)!

EDIT EDIT: See the wonders of HTML5 Canvas! (http://www.mrspeaker.net/dev/parcycle/)

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Javascript Wolfenstein! (http://www.nihilogic.dk/labs/wolf/)

EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT!!!! A gazillion JavaScript games! (http://www.javascriptgaming.com/)

As far as the Breakout clone goes, that stuff has been possible before FireFox became common. I remember looking at the code for a Pong clone to see how the collision mathematics worked so I could make my own Pong clone for a VB class. It's nothing new. Know why it hasn't caught on? It's unnecessary. Flash gets the same job done with less headaches. Would you rather draw the rectangle or list the coordinates of its corners? I don't see the Javascript based games catching on unless someone makes an application that turns it into a point-and-click sort of procedure.

I know this is a digression from the topic of .APNGs but I saw someone getting excited over something that doesn't really deserve it yet. I'm sure Dark Bring wants to do this to me now :spray: so I'm outta hurr.

As far as the Breakout clone goes, that stuff has been possible before FireFox became common. I remember looking at the code for a Pong clone to see how the collision mathematics worked so I could make my own Pong clone for a VB class.Look beyond the Breakout clones.


Flash gets the same job done with less headaches. Would you rather draw the rectangle or list the coordinates of its corners?As a user, would you rather that the game works without you having to install a plugin?
As a developer, would you rather the user go install a plugin so that you can do less work?
There's a tradeoff between developer convenience and user experience. Which one is more important to you?


I don't see the Javascript based games catching on unless someone makes an application that turns it into a point-and-click sort of procedure.Most of the games that run on Windows, OS X, Linux, XBOX 360, PS3, are written in C++. Is writing C++ a point-and-click affair?


I know this is a digression from the topic of .APNGs but I saw someone getting excited over something that doesn't really deserve it yet. I'm sure Dark Bring wants to do this to me now :spray: so I'm outta hurr.Have the courage to stand your ground and defend your argument rationally. How much does it cost you?

Look beyond the Breakout clones.

Flash already has. It has interactivity and superb vector graphics. Nothing more is needed.



As a user, would you rather that the game works without you having to install a plugin?
As a developer, would you rather the user go install a plugin so that you can do less work?
There's a tradeoff between developer convenience and user experience. Which one is more important to you?


What tradeoff? I'm only defending Flash here, by the way. Installing Flash is quite painless for the user; it involves downloading a setup file and going through some motions for ~96% (that's my own mental estimate after adding together figures from a table on Wiki; it is fallible) of users. The other 4% either need to stop acting like progressive hipsters who think they're going against the grain by using an alternative OS, or face the reality that they are not going to get the same web experience as everyone else. Last I checked, Flash is supported on Windows, Mac and even Linux, so basically everyone who cares. I will admit though it is more expensive for the developer. Adobe Flash can't beat the price of free.



Most of the games that run on Windows, OS X, Linux, XBOX 360, PS3, are written in C++. Is writing C++ a point-and-click affair?

No, writing Windows, OS X, Linux and WiiS360 games is not a point-and-click affair. But that's not the focus here. You're escalating this to a different realm. We're talking about browser games, which Flash fills the niche for nicely.



Have the courage to stand your ground and defend your argument rationally. How much does it cost you?
I see someone's Humorometer 9000 is broken. <_<

Can we chill now?

I see someone's Humorometer 9000 is broken. <_<

Can we chill now?I'm here to argue rationally, not to chill.


Flash already has. It has interactivity and superb vector graphics. Nothing more is needed.Imagine when browser platforms have the same feature set that Flash provides! And that's already happening, just that you're not aware of it.

I suggest that you check out "Introduction to HTML5" (http://vimeo.com/6691519), a video that will show you what your browser platform of choice is becoming capable of.


What tradeoff?I repeat: the tradeoff is that you, as a developer, is asking the user to do more work on your behalf so that you can skip out on writing a few lines of code.


The other 4% either need to stop acting like progressive hipsters who think they're going against the grain by using an alternative OS, or face the reality that they are not going to get the same web experience as everyone else. Last I checked, Flash is supported on Windows, Mac and even Linux, so basically everyone who cares. I will admit though it is more expensive for the developer. Adobe Flash can't beat the price of free.You think that a proprietary extension is necessary for everyone to enjoy the same web experience.

I'm telling you that with public and open web standards, anyone can enjoy the same web experience, without having to resort to proprietary extensions.


No, writing Windows, OS X, Linux and WiiS360 games is not a point-and-click affair. But that's not the focus here. You're escalating this to a different realm. We're talking about browser games, which Flash fills the niche for nicely.Programming is a not a point-and-click affair, and Flash is no different. If you don't recognise how limited it is to develop Flash with only point-and-click, I suggest that you attempt to find a job as a Flash developer that doesn't require knowledge of ActionScript and Flex.

I repeat: the tradeoff is that you, as a developer, is asking the user to do more work on your behalf so that you can skip out on writing a few lines of code.

You think that a proprietary extension is necessary for everyone to enjoy the same web experience.

I'm telling you that with public and open web standards, anyone can enjoy the same web experience, without having to resort to proprietary extensions.


I'm not going to argue the technical aspects any further because they are not my area of expertise. I concede that programming is not a point and click affair in most capacities, even Flash. I will however pick a bone with what you have mentioned in this part. I must also repeat: downloading a plugin is not work, at least not difficult work. Renovating a courtyard is difficult work. Writing the programs for end-users is difficult work.

I also do not think that proprietary is NECESSARY. I am simply arguing that Flash is already dominant, and there does not need to be an alternative unless it offers something truly revolutionary. If it was the case that an open standard dominated, and Adobe's Flash was a mere fledgling, I would be advocating the open standard. I advocate not based on whether it is proprietary or open, but based on the fact that Flash absolutely dominates in the area of interactive content. I would only change my stance if these new capabilities could outperform Flash significantly.

You also seem to be equating proprietary with "bad." Why is it that you consider the use of proprietary technology "resorting?"

I must also repeat: downloading a plugin is not work, at least not difficult work. <snip> Writing the programs for end-users is difficult work.My point is downloading and installing a plugin is unnecessary work, especially when browsers begin to support the features that the plugin implements.


I also do not think that proprietary is NECESSARY. I am simply arguing that Flash is already dominant, and there does not need to be an alternative unless it offers something truly revolutionary. If it was the case that an open standard dominated, and Adobe's Flash was a mere fledgling, I would be advocating the open standard. I advocate not based on whether it is proprietary or open, but based on the fact that Flash absolutely dominates in the area of interactive content. I would only change my stance if these new capabilities could outperform Flash significantly.Flash may dominate the area of interactive content on browsers today, but that is already being eroded by the widespread adoption of web standards (e.g. Ajax). There is very few that Flash can do that HTML5 cannot, and there is very many that HTML5 can do that Flash cannot - see the video in my previous post.


You also seem to be equating proprietary with "bad." Why is it that you consider the use of proprietary technology "resorting?"The definition of "resort" I'm referring to in this case is "the action of turning to and adopting a strategy or course of action, esp. a disagreeable or undesirable one, so as to resolve a difficult situation".

In the past, browsers certainly relied on external plugins, usually proprietary, to provide certain features.

Now that the browsers themselves provide the same features for free and out-of-the-box, the usage of proprietary plugins is certainly undesirable.

Then again, most people already have flash plugins installed, so there's really no need for extra work...

Then again, most people already have flash plugins installed, so there's really no need for extra work...

But then some devices like mobile phones or tablet browsers may not be able to access all the items on a web page, because they are inherently unable to download the plugin. If something is a standard for browsers, as long as you have a browser you are all set.

Aanyway, back to the original discussion on APNG (combined with what's been said before on standards and everything). APNG is not an official standard, but a hack of an official standard. Basically APNG is nothing different from stuff like ActiveX that's only supported by IE. So people who cheer on APNG but diss IE for not following standards are hypocrites :')

Aanyway, back to the original discussion on APNG (combined with what's been said before on standards and everything). APNG is not an official standard, but a hack of an official standard. Basically APNG is nothing different from stuff like ActiveX that's only supported by IE. So people who cheer on APNG but diss IE for not following standards are hypocrites :')
It's only a matter of time until it's accepted, because GIF and Animated GIF was the same way, because the Animated version when it came out, it only worked in Netscape becasue it was made for Netscape to begin with, and it had to be adapted into IE as well.
Besides Firefox & Opera accepted it, it's only a matter of time.

:heh:

Why don't we just all use one internet browser? That way, everything can be supported -.-

Why don't we just all use one internet browser? That way, everything can be supported -.-

Monopolization solves everything.

Hinder your quality, give me more money: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE MISSING OUT ON!

I actually see this as a possible security exploit;

And having a PNG file be animated when they're not supposed to be? Just because it can be animated does not mean that it cannot run rogue code.


libpng is 27000 lines of C code, APNG only adds 1200 lines.
Mozilla uses that libpng+apng code since 2007, without problems.


There are many reasons why animations need to be rendered in flash. User interaction is a big one.

The most important user interaction would be for ESC to stop all animations. Works with AGIF and APNG, doesn't work with Flash.


Cross browser support must be transparent in today's web environment.

Today's web environment is still dominated by IE6, and that needs to change. So I think promting IE6 users to upgrade is totally justified.


If people want a new animated PNG format, they should adopt the format that was designed to perform this task, the MNG. APNG is just a bandaid over another standard. Simple an clean.

MNG is too complex with no application to manage that complexity. If you want to specify correct parameters for let's say the MAGN chunk, you have to be a programmer. There is no application with a nice clean GUI.

That's why MNG cannot compete against Flash. And since it cannot compete, there is no point to implement it.

APNG is not an official standard, but a hack of an official standard.

It's not a hack. PNG is extensible format, by definition. It is allowed to be extended through addition of new chunk types.

That's exactly what APNG does - it adds 3 new chunk types.

The most important user interaction would be for ESC to stop all animations. Works with AGIF and APNG, doesn't work with Flash.

Or maybe, like, you can click around in the animation and the animation responds? Like a game? Send me a PM when you find an AGIF that can do that.

Or maybe, like, you can click around in the animation and the animation responds? Like a game? Send me a PM when you find an AGIF that can do that.

Animated GIFs/PNGs and such don't use as much computer memory as flash also.
Flash makes my computer's fan go into overdrive.
x_x

and interaction can be made using javascript.

Or maybe, like, you can click around in the animation and the animation responds? Like a game? Send me a PM when you find an AGIF that can do that.

"Wait for user input" is a part of AGIF specs, it's just nobody needs it. I don't need it either, so don't expect a PM from me.

Now, ESC stopping all animations would actually be useful.

How is ESC stopping all animations useful? Why would you even WANT your user freezing up your entire website if you're trying to provide an interactive experience?

How is ESC stopping all animations useful?

Like when too many animated avatars on a forum could be kinda distracting. I'm not exactly losing something important by stopping them.

I don't think anyone is waiting for APNG though. Maybe 10 years ago, but now people seem to default to flash or they just use animated gif, at least you know pretty much everyone on the internet can view both.

Only people with a stick up their arse would choose APNG. Why? I don't know, but why do they have a stick up their arse in the first place? They both make no sense.

It's like building a car that's better than your neighbour's, but uses a kind of petrol you can't buy anywhere.

but now people seem to default to flash

But you can't upload your forum avatar as flash, right?

Uploading images to imageshack/photobucket and then posting them anywhere you want is just too easy.


or they just use animated gif

Sure, but gifs are so 1990s. Why not use something better in 2010s...


at least you know pretty much everyone on the internet can view both.

Not everyone cares about that. So what if someone with IE can't see your awesome animated avatar as animated? Big deal.


Only people with a stick up their arse would choose APNG.

When people don't have better arguments they often resort to insults. Don't be one of them.

Well, using the logic of those that support APNG, considering how long it takes to implement and to have people trust a new format, we won't be seeing anything of the such in main stream for another 7 years. Businesses won't invest in something this small that would take that long, so it would strictly be for a small crowd, no different than using eruby in web pages instead of javascript.

The most important user interaction would be for ESC to stop all animations. Works with AGIF and APNG, doesn't work with Flash.


Wait, how's ESC stopping all animations the most important user interaction? And it's possible with flash, just by adding an eventlistener to the key...

Wait, how's ESC stopping all animations the most important user interaction? And it's possible with flash, just by adding an eventlistener to the key...

Because large loading flash animations are a real pain for some people... Having Animated GIF/PNG being able to stop their loading by ESC key is a lot more efficient/easier then trying to tell website owners with huge flash animations which lag pages to add a ESC eventlistener function to the page, at least with Animated GIF/PNG you don't have to add in a command like that...

Some people Flash isn't a good thing...

<_<

Well, using the logic of those that support APNG, considering how long it takes to implement and to have people trust a new format, we won't be seeing anything of the such in main stream for another 7 years. Businesses won't invest in something this small that would take that long, so it would strictly be for a small crowd, no different than using eruby in web pages instead of javascript.

In the past "businesses" decided that, of course.

But these days much of internet content is generated by regular users. They could make it viral overnight. You never know.