Page 1 of 2

1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:03 am UTC
by glasnt
Image

Alt: Points to anyone who hacks the Flickr devs' computers to make their text editors do this when you click on anything.

GEE WILKIES IT'S MOVING


I'm pretty sure imgur already have a crusade against badly timed captioned gifs, but these zooming slideshows should be set aside for screensavers from the 90s

1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:04 am UTC
by The Synologist
Image

Title Text: Points to anyone who hacks the Flickr devs' computers to make their text editors do this when you click on anything.

This. A thousand times THIS

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:06 am UTC
by rhomboidal
I just hope the next big web thing isn't going to be slideshow sentences. Torture.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:10 am UTC
by joee
Flickr is down for me at the moment. Coincidence or have we xkcd'd it?

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:34 am UTC
by Steve the Pocket
Also: Making said slideshow require Flash when it can be accomplished just as easily with JavaScript, and providing no alternative to non-Flash-havers except a "This feature requires Flash. Sucks to be you!" should be grounds for capital punishment. I'm lookin' at you, deviantART.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:40 am UTC
by cjmcjmcjmcjm
Steve the Pocket wrote:Also: Making said slideshow require Flash when it can be accomplished just as easily with JavaScript, and providing no alternative to non-Flash-havers except a "This feature requires Flash. Sucks to be you!" should be grounds for capital punishment. I'm lookin' at you, deviantART.

Also Bristol-Myers Squibb. No, don't bitch at me for using Chrome/Pepper when I want to view jobs sorted geographically.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:42 am UTC
by Quicksilver
I would. Still better than marquee.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:45 am UTC
by pitareio
joee wrote:Flickr is down for me at the moment. Coincidence or have we xkcd'd it?


Scheduled maintenance.

Flickr in is Alexa's top 100 websites : a mention on xkcd is, let's say, unlikely to cause a significant increase in its traffic.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:49 am UTC
by gmalivuk
Public service for those not already aware:
http://deslide.clusterfake.net/

I haven't checked whether it works with those horrific zooming ones, because fortunately I've never come across an unavoidable one on any site I can't simply never visit again.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:53 am UTC
by just john
Yes, when I have a bunch of images for you to look at, I give you a front page with a bunch of tumbnails to click on.

And, of course, I'm unemployed.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:08 am UTC
by Djehutynakht
When I saw it moving I thought we had another epic project like "Time" or "Click and Drag" on our hands.

Alas... I am too hopeful.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am UTC
by karel1980
For those who care to know the name of their demons - and those who deviates who prefer to watch their slideshows like this and could use something to effectively google their drug: It's called the Ken Burns effect.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:12 am UTC
by Tualha
First xkcd comic I've ever wanted to block :p

It's unbelievable how much jiggling, zooming, moving crap a typical modern webpage has, all competing for your attention. I would find the web unusable without Flashblock and Adblock Plus. Now I want a tool to turn off gif animation except on certain sites, e.g. QC.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:13 am UTC
by CasualSax
Two points for making a good point, but XKCD loses one of them for approving of hacking, even in jest.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:13 am UTC
by Eebster the Great
The best way to display multiple large images is to thumbnail them, expand them on click, and allow you to switch between adjacent images with arrow keys (like a paused slideshow).

This is an objective fact.


By the way, the "Ken Burns effect" actually is a very useful technique for showing detail in still images in TV and film, because the audience can't directly interact with the image and might actually want to see a close-up of the details. Besides, still images look boring in video. In these cases, the zoom and pan are deliberate and show points of interest. But some sites implement a slideshow that seems to just slightly zoom and arbitrarily pan images (similar to this comic) with no concern for their content, not only defeating the purpose but enraging viewers to the point of foaming and babbling.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:17 am UTC
by just john
Eebster the Great wrote:The best way to display multiple large images is to thumbnail them, expand them on click, and allow you to switch between adjacent images with arrow keys (like a paused slideshow).

This is an objective fact.


I take it you are ALSO unemployed.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:20 am UTC
by Eebster the Great
just john wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:The best way to display multiple large images is to thumbnail them, expand them on click, and allow you to switch between adjacent images with arrow keys (like a paused slideshow).

This is an objective fact.


I take it you are ALSO unemployed.

No. I perform molecular dynamics simulations of the insulin dimer for far below minimum wage on outdated software (the OS, the program suite, and the compiler) and on hardware that is not up to the task.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:30 am UTC
by scotty2haughty
Thank you.
From the bottom of my heart.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:36 am UTC
by azule
Djehutynakht wrote:When I saw it moving I thought we had another epic project like "Time" or "Click and Drag" on our hands.

Alas... I am too hopeful.
Me too. Though at 127 frames, autogenerated, with 3 unique drawings, it is a poor substitute.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:48 am UTC
by Patrik3
I... don't really get what's so bad about that style of slideshow?

As long as it moves through the pictures at a good pace (i.e. fast enough so it doesn't drag, but slow enough so you can appreciate the image) it's quite a nice way of displaying images. And the panning and zooming means that you can highlight specific parts of an image, or be able to view the entire image at a higher zoom level than the size of the picture box would normally allow...

And almost all of the ones I've seen have also included a row of thumbnails along the bottom which you can click on manually to interrupt the slideshow...

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:55 am UTC
by dalcde
Patrik3 wrote:I... don't really get what's so bad about that style of slideshow?

As long as it moves through the pictures at a good pace (i.e. fast enough so it doesn't drag, but slow enough so you can appreciate the image) it's quite a nice way of displaying images. And the panning and zooming means that you can highlight specific parts of an image, or be able to view the entire image at a higher zoom level than the size of the picture box would normally allow...

And almost all of the ones I've seen have also included a row of thumbnails along the bottom which you can click on manually to interrupt the slideshow...


Eebster the Great wrote:By the way, the "Ken Burns effect" actually is a very useful technique for showing detail in still images in TV and film, because the audience can't directly interact with the image and might actually want to see a close-up of the details. Besides, still images look boring in video. In these cases, the zoom and pan are deliberate and show points of interest. But some sites implement a slideshow that seems to just slightly zoom and arbitrarily pan images (similar to this comic) with no concern for their content, not only defeating the purpose but enraging viewers to the point of foaming and babbling.


And it sucks when you can't right-click -> view image (it might be possible in certain implementations, but generally it doesn't work)

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:46 am UTC
by rmsgrey
Patrik3 wrote:I... don't really get what's so bad about that style of slideshow?

As long as it moves through the pictures at a good pace (i.e. fast enough so it doesn't drag, but slow enough so you can appreciate the image) it's quite a nice way of displaying images. And the panning and zooming means that you can highlight specific parts of an image, or be able to view the entire image at a higher zoom level than the size of the picture box would normally allow...

And almost all of the ones I've seen have also included a row of thumbnails along the bottom which you can click on manually to interrupt the slideshow...


I'd rather have an opt-in for that sort of thing than an opt-out (where available)

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:57 am UTC
by ucim
I find it interestingly ironic how many animated avatars there are in the responses to this one. :)

Jose

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:36 pm UTC
by Locoluis
Agh, Youtube is polluted with this nonsense.

It's an horribly inconvenient way to tell a story with text and still photographs.

And it gets worse if your lame, slow loading video is preceded by a lame, slow loading ad.

What's wrong with good old image galleries?

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:47 pm UTC
by njank
Eebster the Great wrote:
just john wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:No. I perform molecular dynamics simulations of the insulin dimer for far below minimum wage on outdated software (the OS, the program suite, and the compiler) and on hardware that is not up to the task.


ahh.... a graduate student. at least you've come to terms with your reality. just think, only a few more years of this and you'll get to the same point in life all you're business major friends were at 4 years earlier. And they all got MBA's because, "Heck, we can do grad school, too. What's taking you so long?"

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:49 pm UTC
by popman
I'm dissapointed randall didn't try to implement this in APNG, at least for browsers which offer support, especially since he's made comics which detect browsers before.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:06 pm UTC
by Diadem
gmalivuk wrote:Public service for those not already aware:
http://deslide.clusterfake.net/

I haven't checked whether it works with those horrific zooming ones, because fortunately I've never come across an unavoidable one on any site I can't simply never visit again.

From that site's latest changes:
updated support for www.tvovermind.com
Their developers must've been at the sherry again:
1.After the first three slides, the server delivers its content accompanied by the HTTP status code "403 - Forbidden" instead of "200 - OK", indicating that you won't be able to see the content which it then delivers anyway.
2.After about 30 slides that switches back to normal (200 - OK). Mmmkay...
3.Then, in the middle of the slideshow, some slides are delivered using the "mobile" layout of the website
4.The code of that mobile version is somwhere between totally broken and bonkers:
besides unique IDs not being unique, the special (special needs?) highlight is that they've gotten the "prev" and "next" links wrong, i.e. on those sites you'll have to follow the "prev" link to get to the next slide and the "next" link will take you back to the previous slide.


lol, that sounds like well-designed code.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:17 pm UTC
by Klear
ucim wrote:I find it interestingly ironic how many animated avatars there are in the responses to this one. :)


Here you are:

Image

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:22 pm UTC
by Mike Rore
Diadem wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Public service for those not already aware:
http://deslide.clusterfake.net/

I haven't checked whether it works with those horrific zooming ones, because fortunately I've never come across an unavoidable one on any site I can't simply never visit again.

From that site's latest changes:
updated support for http://www.tvovermind.com
Their developers must've been at the sherry again:
1.After the first three slides, the server delivers its content accompanied by the HTTP status code "403 - Forbidden" instead of "200 - OK", indicating that you won't be able to see the content which it then delivers anyway.
2.After about 30 slides that switches back to normal (200 - OK). Mmmkay...
3.Then, in the middle of the slideshow, some slides are delivered using the "mobile" layout of the website
4.The code of that mobile version is somwhere between totally broken and bonkers:
besides unique IDs not being unique, the special (special needs?) highlight is that they've gotten the "prev" and "next" links wrong, i.e. on those sites you'll have to follow the "prev" link to get to the next slide and the "next" link will take you back to the previous slide.


lol, that sounds like well-designed code.


I love that the site (http://deslide.clusterfake.net/) has an announcement for XKCD visitors. :)

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:38 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
Steve the Pocket wrote:Also: Making said slideshow require Flash when it can be accomplished just as easily with JavaScript, and providing no alternative to non-Flash-havers except a "This feature requires Flash. Sucks to be you!" should be grounds for capital punishment. I'm lookin' at you, deviantART.

Does that include the inability to right-click/save as?
dalcde wrote:And it sucks when you can't right-click -> view image (it might be possible in certain implementations, but generally it doesn't work)
Most implementations I've seen are doing it specifically because the content creator doesn't want you to do that, at least not easily.

But my wife is a photographer and has a lot of friends in that business and since some of them make their living off selling images to people, it... completely makes sense as to why they'd want to make their web images a pain in the ass to get your hands on (and low-quality and covered in watermarks even if you do).

But they're ... pretty much the only people who get a pass on this shit. xXx_420Chr0n1cL0vA_xXx has no excuse.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:06 pm UTC
by Flumble
popman wrote:I'm dissapointed randall didn't try to implement this in APNG, at least for browsers which offer support, especially since he's made comics which detect browsers before.

To be fair, a grayscale image with little movement compresses just fine in gif. (and gif can of course not very straightforward offer true-color)

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:28 pm UTC
by cellocgw
Djehutynakht wrote:When I saw it moving I thought we had another epic project like "Time" or "Click and Drag" on our hands.

Alas... I am too hopeful.


Well, you do have to Wait For It . Just not for very long, comparatively speaking.

Sorta makes OTTifying pointless.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:29 pm UTC
by cellocgw
Eebster the Great wrote:
just john wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:The best way to display multiple large images is to thumbnail them, expand them on click, and allow you to switch between adjacent images with arrow keys (like a paused slideshow).

This is an objective fact.


I take it you are ALSO unemployed.

No. I perform molecular dynamics simulations of the insulin dimer for far below minimum wage on outdated software (the OS, the program suite, and the compiler) and on hardware that is not up to the task.


Oh, a grad student, obviously. :mrgreen: You're in the wrong place: you should be posting to phdcomics :oops:

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:40 pm UTC
by schwartzbewithyou
Djehutynakht wrote:When I saw it moving I thought we had another epic project like "Time" or "Click and Drag" on our hands.
Alas... I am too hopeful.


ditto. *sigh*

cellocgw wrote:Well, you do have to Wait For It . Just not for very long, comparatively speaking.
Sorta makes OTTifying pointless.

heresy!

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:56 pm UTC
by Barstro
Locoluis wrote:Agh, Youtube is polluted with this nonsense.

It's an horribly inconvenient way to tell a story with text and still photographs.

And businesses that use these to demonstrate their products have the nerve to call them "videos".

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:40 pm UTC
by ToomanyUIDs
I was wondering why everyone was moaning about the yahoo's at Yahoo!'s latest revamp of Flickr. I only looked at the front page and thought it looked ridiculously different. I'm glad I didn't bother browsing.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:41 pm UTC
by ucim
Klear wrote:
ucim wrote:I find it interestingly ironic how many animated avatars there are in the responses to this one. :)


Here you are:

Image

Ouch! Oh, the pain, the pain!

Whoever takes this one as theirs
will raise up the backs of my hairs
I cannot endorse
the lack of remorse
that the use of this image declares.

When avatars wiggle and twitch
it gives my poor eyeballs an itch
I'd rather they stay
on one picture, I say
than to constantly flicker and switch.

Jose

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:23 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
SecondTalon wrote:
Steve the Pocket wrote:Also: Making said slideshow require Flash when it can be accomplished just as easily with JavaScript, and providing no alternative to non-Flash-havers except a "This feature requires Flash. Sucks to be you!" should be grounds for capital punishment. I'm lookin' at you, deviantART.

Does that include the inability to right-click/save as?
dalcde wrote:And it sucks when you can't right-click -> view image (it might be possible in certain implementations, but generally it doesn't work)
Most implementations I've seen are doing it specifically because the content creator doesn't want you to do that, at least not easily.

But my wife is a photographer and has a lot of friends in that business and since some of them make their living off selling images to people, it... completely makes sense as to why they'd want to make their web images a pain in the ass to get your hands on (and low-quality and covered in watermarks even if you do).

But they're ... pretty much the only people who get a pass on this shit. xXx_420Chr0n1cL0vA_xXx has no excuse.
Yeah, if you're some kind of artist and these pictures are your livelihood, fine. If you're a graphic designer and the website is meant to show some of your web design skills, fine. But if you're a news outlet and these pictures are supposed to be part of one contiguous story, then give me the option to see them all one one page that I can scroll through at my liesure.

Often my rule of thumb is that if a non-artsy site won't display in a usable, timely manner on my phone or netbook, it's not a site that deserves any of my pageviews.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:37 pm UTC
by Eebster the Great
I'm also not convinced that the weak attempts at copyright protection (as seen in such slideshows) are at all effective, since they are so easy to circumvent.

Re: 1264: "Slideshow"

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:21 pm UTC
by peewee_RotA
I will never... want to browse a series of images... like this.


Right! I prefer to view still images that only change once per hour for which we have to create our own viewer in order to see in proper sequence.



(The sad part is that this is true for most of us)