3 ms·
I went into the inspector and added the css rule: img[src*=gif] { display: none; } I'm a young people and the answer is no. Maybe if it's buzz
by maaarghk 11y ago
I went into the inspector and added the css rule:
img[src*=gif] {
display: none;
}
I'm a young people and the answer is no. Maybe if it's buzzfeed and the article is comprised solely of it. But in that case the gifs would have at least relevant content in them, unlike these.
I see it a lot in articles coming from people who work at Facebook and Google, maybe it's something to do with all that "fun" malarkey that they're allowed, whatever it is.
- dredmorbius 11y agoI've employed Stylish to add a number of default rules. Setting the visibility / opacity of gifs to 0 by default, but enabling them on hover, with a transition delay, works pretty well. For animations which are in fact useful, I can see them. For those which aren't, I can avoid them. Finding appropriate transition delays (usually ~0.3s for on hover, 3-6 seconds to revert) is a matter of personal taste.
- Nadya 11y agoI combine that with Greasemonkey on a per-site basis. The following script, slightly modified per-site, can make it so the page only displays the content area. No navigation, no side-bar ads, nothing but the content. Combined with Stylish to style and center the content, remove images, make the typography easier to read, and fix contrast issues/href colors. I use it for practically all news/media sites to make my reading experiences more enjoyable. It's like my own personal "Readable" or whatever the Safari add-on / that-one-site is called. :) document.body.innerHTML=document.getElementById('content').innerHTML;