7 ms·

AV1 is an open and free format, but if people really wanted to replace GIFs they could've done it with H.264 or VP9 or VP8. Notwithstanding any issues about vi

AV1 is an open and free format, but if people really wanted to replace GIFs they could've done it with H.264 or VP9 or VP8. Notwithstanding any issues about video codec support in browsers, GIFs will continue to have value until browser-vendors, spec-writers, and webmasters accidentally or deliberately coalesce around a sane ruleset for embedded motion picture completely devoid of audio. Today, browser-makers have concerns about which videos to autoplay, webmasters' tools for specifying "muted" videos have been unreliable. GIFs completely sidestep that conversation, because GIFs cannot contain audio, and will always autoplay.

FreeFull 7y ago
Perhaps audio-free videos should be allowed in <img> tags
- pavlov 7y ago
  I'd support that (as if anyone's asking me...) on three conditions: 1) Maximum duration of, say, 10 s (with mandatory looping) 2) Maximum display size of, say, 25% viewport area 3) Browsers must enforce "Click to stop" on these "video-img" elements even if there are other DOM elements on top.
  - TheCoreh 7y ago
    If none of these conditions apply to gifs, why should they apply to videos in img tags?
    - jodrellblank 7y ago
      Because we can't change the past, but we can improve the future.
- masklinn 7y ago
  Audio-free videos are often allowed to autoplay (though you may need to flag them as muted as well). TFA'a video autoplay just fine in both Safari and Firefox.
- vincentriemer 7y ago
  I believe that this is the case on Safari, don't know about any other browsers though
vortico 7y ago
You're right, but I think the purpose of the article is to spread word about AV1 as a comparison with h264 and vp9 through the fun example of GIFs. Most people know that at least h264 should be used for looping movie clips if your service cares about filesize. I believe that autoplaying videos are allowed in all browsers if no sound channel is included in the video container.
masklinn 7y ago
> AV1 is an open and free format, but if people really wanted to replace GIFs they could've done it with H.264 or VP9 or VP8. They have. The "gifs" on reddit or imgur are generally h.264, even if you upload gifs they'll get converted to video files. TFA's just saying those should be switched to AV1, or an AV1 source should be provided. I'm not sure they're right though. h.264 will be larger and of lower quality especially at low bitrates, but clients can offload the decoding to hardware whereas with AV1 most or all will be decoding in software.
- tjoff 7y ago
  ... and it is a complete mess. They try to to decide which format you want based on your client. Thus if you hotlink an image directly you don't know anymore if it will load or even if the format the next guy will see has sound. I've linked "images" purely because of the sound and other viewers got a version without it. And many times it just won't load. This is supposed to be simple...
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    Some sites (looking at you, imgur) are really bad about that. Doing what this article recommends shouldn't cause those problems, though. The only notable risk is linking a format that mobile can't load.
    - silversconfused 7y ago
      Often you can just load the same url with .gif on the end and it will work, since they make many formats available with the same base filename.
    - tjoff 7y ago
      How is that not a complete dealbreaker though? I as a user can't possibly be expected to know and deal with whatever the recipient of my link uses. A magnitude or two of data and worse quality is a small price to pay for something that actually works and still loads in realtime, even on mobile, anyway.
kevingadd 7y ago
Even simple scenarios, like 'show animated preview on mouseover' are borderline impossible to do reliably cross-browser unless you use a GIF. It's really frustrating.
follower 7y ago
> because GIFs cannot contain audio They can (publicly) now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19935900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19935900 Of course, there's no browser support for the Application Extension, so it requires a Javascript player for now.

FreeFull 7y ago

Perhaps audio-free videos should be allowed in <img> tags

pavlov 7y ago
I'd support that (as if anyone's asking me...) on three conditions: 1) Maximum duration of, say, 10 s (with mandatory looping) 2) Maximum display size of, say, 25% viewport area 3) Browsers must enforce "Click to stop" on these "video-img" elements even if there are other DOM elements on top.
- TheCoreh 7y ago
  If none of these conditions apply to gifs, why should they apply to videos in img tags?
  - jodrellblank 7y ago
    Because we can't change the past, but we can improve the future.
masklinn 7y ago
Audio-free videos are often allowed to autoplay (though you may need to flag them as muted as well). TFA'a video autoplay just fine in both Safari and Firefox.
vincentriemer 7y ago
I believe that this is the case on Safari, don't know about any other browsers though

vortico 7y ago

You're right, but I think the purpose of the article is to spread word about AV1 as a comparison with h264 and vp9 through the fun example of GIFs. Most people know that at least h264 should be used for looping movie clips if your service cares about filesize. I believe that autoplaying videos are allowed in all browsers if no sound channel is included in the video container.

masklinn 7y ago

> AV1 is an open and free format, but if people really wanted to replace GIFs they could've done it with H.264 or VP9 or VP8. They have. The "gifs" on reddit or imgur are generally h.264, even if you upload gifs they'll get converted to video files. TFA's just saying those should be switched to AV1, or an AV1 source should be provided. I'm not sure they're right though. h.264 will be larger and of lower quality especially at low bitrates, but clients can offload the decoding to hardware whereas with AV1 most or all will be decoding in software.

tjoff 7y ago
... and it is a complete mess. They try to to decide which format you want based on your client. Thus if you hotlink an image directly you don't know anymore if it will load or even if the format the next guy will see has sound. I've linked "images" purely because of the sound and other viewers got a version without it. And many times it just won't load. This is supposed to be simple...
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  Some sites (looking at you, imgur) are really bad about that. Doing what this article recommends shouldn't cause those problems, though. The only notable risk is linking a format that mobile can't load.
  - silversconfused 7y ago
    Often you can just load the same url with .gif on the end and it will work, since they make many formats available with the same base filename.
  - tjoff 7y ago
    How is that not a complete dealbreaker though? I as a user can't possibly be expected to know and deal with whatever the recipient of my link uses. A magnitude or two of data and worse quality is a small price to pay for something that actually works and still loads in realtime, even on mobile, anyway.

kevingadd 7y ago

Even simple scenarios, like 'show animated preview on mouseover' are borderline impossible to do reliably cross-browser unless you use a GIF. It's really frustrating.

follower 7y ago

> because GIFs cannot contain audio They can (publicly) now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19935900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19935900 Of course, there's no browser support for the Application Extension, so it requires a Javascript player for now.