Mastodon: Request: could the 500 page become non-blinking?

[wimvanderbauwhede]

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).

[serin-delaunay]

Note: this issue was mentioned in the pull request which added this animation (https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/5099#issuecomment-332009129, animation at top of page), but the comment was ignored by both the author/merger and approver of the PR.

[Cassolotl]

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

[nightpool]

Vestibular disorder (the main concern for motion and animation, and the
reason autoplay gifs is off) talks mainly about movement that's not in
focus, or out if the corner of your eye. That's not a concern here as far
as I understand it, because the blinking computer is the only thing on the
page. This was the assessment I made in dev chat when I approved the PR.

I don't think it's blinking fast enough to cause concerns about triggering
epilepsy, but if it is that should be something we address

Otherwise I don't see any reason to change the animation.
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:06 AM Cassolotl [e-mail] wrote:

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

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/issues/6060#issuecomment-353404226,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAORV536PYBkFgPn8A6ViM0nHTS2Hfjxks5tCpAlgaJpZM4REvgC
.

[Cassolotl]

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.

[clarfonthey]

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.

[clarfonthey]

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

[ykzts]

You can use Animation Policy (Google Chrome).

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

[serin-delaunay]

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

[moggers87]

@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]

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]

we're currently working to make the image slower and much less flashy

On Sat, May 5, 2018, 6:31 PM Ivan Kupalov [e-mail] wrote:

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.

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/issues/6060#issuecomment-386839645,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAORV_JYcCvhb_znguGa-nX0CqE174orks5tvihKgaJpZM4REvgC
.

[ThibG]

@nightpool any progress on that?

[nightpool]

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

[moggers87]

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

This was proposed in https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/6189

[Gargron]

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]

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

[clarfonthey]

@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.

[Palingenae]

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]

@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]

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.

[TixieBorg]

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]

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?

[lanodan]

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).

Maybe it would be to enable the animation only for browsers that supports it and do not have it enabled? (As seen in the WebKit demo)

[ThibG]

Is there any progress on the gentler animation?
Also, wouldn't the first frame of the current animation actually be enough?
It looks like this:

[shleeable]

Experiencing technical issues can be stressful, and the little funny reprieve of the little dude hitting the keys makes me laugh out loud every single time... the animation will be missed

I approve of changing this for accessibility reasons.