I think E621 should allow more file types; such as APNG, FLIF, PDF, SVG, SVGZ, WebP, etcetera. Don't you think so?

APNG *is* allowed, because APNG is, to all outward appearances, PNG
(and KiraNoot is not particularly happy about that fact).

APNG example: post #307082

PDF: no
FLIF: no

Neither of these have mainstream browser support (embedding in a webpage, rather than pdf.js style 'document as a whole browser tab'). If you have to install a plugin to view them in the proper way, it's not mainstream.

The multi-page aspect of PDFs is also a problem for tagging IMO (although I suppose you can disallow multipage PDFs, but that would beg the question "why support PDF in the first place?")

SVG: maybe. Similar caveats as with HTML5 may apply. Browser support is.. OK, but you need to target a specific version of SVG in order to achieve a reliable result. Currently it seems like SVG >1.x <2.0 (that is, documents that use some SVG 2 features) would need to be rejected on the basis of unreliable browser support.

SVGZ : this is just compressed svg. There is no reason not to serve SVGZ if you do already serve SVG.

WebP : Eventually. The existence of some website that is a) popular and b) heavily uses WebP, would hasten this. At the moment, supporting WebP is still a somewhat speculative move IMO.

Overall, supporting any additional format should not surprise or confuse the user, whether that surprise is in the form of being presented with a download dialog rather than a picture, or in some other form. Therefore, it's primarily dependent on having a detailed understanding of what formats are supported by what browsers, to what extent.

WebP might be supported in the future, but our current image sampler doesn't support it.
SVG/SVGZ will probably be supported when/if we add support for html5 games. We don't accept html5 yet because of security concerns we have to solve first.
PDF is no, we are a art archive, not a story archive.
Never heard of FLIF and since I haven't heard of it, it likely isn't supported by any browser.

Chaser said:
Never heard of FLIF...

You can find more information about FLIF at https://flif.info .

Chaser said:
We are a art archive, not a story archive.

Acording to the Oxford Dictionary, art is "The expression or application of creative skill and imagination.", so stories are a form of art.

tritlupo said:
Acording to the Oxford Dictionary, art is "The expression or application of creative skill and imagination.", so stories are a form of art.

The fact that Chaser was using a definition of art that excludes written material is quite evident in the sentence you quoted.

Besides that, discussions on permitting written material have been had in the past, and the result has been consistently that it is not within e621's intended scope.

(also that it makes TWYS rather difficult to apply)

SVG falls into a weird space where it's an image format that allows javascript. When embedded inside image tags, this doesn't happen, however, if you press the download button and it opens in another tab, it now executes javascript in the context of the domain. This means purchasing another domain, the same way that html5 applications does, much the same way that google has googleusercontent.com when they host things such as SVG files. Given the inherent complexity of the standards, processing them, validating them, and that I've never seen/heard anyone say they want to produce SVG artwork and distribute it, this sounds like a total waste of time.

WebP: support isn't there for it
FLIF: Unsupported, and unlikely to be supported. I'd rather back something like AV1 still frame support, which looks promising and is likely to have browser support. When AVIF support starts showing up, then plans to support it on the site will show up.
PDF: Out of scope

I heard about FLIF recently. It seems the only feature it's missing is audio, but assuming it's anywhere as close to what they claim it aim, it already supercedes JPG, PNG, GIF and APNG. I wonder why no one supports it.

KiraNoot said:

I just noticed your avatar has a horribly broken ankle and now I can't stop looking at it.

OneMoreAnonymous said:
I heard about FLIF recently. It seems the only feature it's missing is audio, but assuming it's anywhere as close to what they claim it aim, it already supercedes JPG, PNG, GIF and APNG. I wonder why no one supports it.

Lack of interest, lack of software support, and existing formats are "good enough".

JPEG 2000 and WebP faced the same issues. So will AVIF. With today's Chrome browser monoculture, maybe Google can push support for new formats to most web browsers. But if artists don't use it, it won't matter. A lot of the art on e621 ends up being compressed 1280px JPGs from FurAffinity.

KiraNoot said:
PDF: Out of scope

Text will make E621 more inclusive; there are a few blind furries arround the world.

tritlupo said:
Text will make E621 more inclusive; there are a few blind furries arround the world.

Let me try again, since you didn't follow the first time:

e621 is a visual art repository focusing exclusively on illustration and digital graphics.

We do not allow statues, sculptures, stuffed animals, fursuits or similar items.
We do not allow tattoos, dakimura, graffiti, fancy car paint jobs, or screenshots. Nor do we allow memes/image macros.
We do not allow photography. Except high quality photos of illustrations, executed in a way that the photograph is mostly indistinguishable from a scan. (which is to say, no 'artsy' photos with your markers in the corner)

We do not, under any circumstances, allow stories, except in descriptions or occasionally comments. Stories are not intended to be the main focus of our content. We focus on visual illustrative media, and computer graphics.

I'm not saying this to be rude, but there are blind furries, this is 100% true. Many blind people still retain an amount of visual perception. Those who have enough visual perception to enjoy art may make use of our website. If someone is blind enough that they can no longer appreciate visual images, then they are probably not part of our target audience.

They have no interest in being on our website, and likely already have websites where they go to for their stories.

While an "e621" for fiction would be interesting, it is not within our scope.

If you want it, go make it yourself, please.

SnowWolf said:
Let me try again, since you didn't follow the first time:

e621 is a visual art repository focusing exclusively on illustration and digital graphics.

We do not allow statues, sculptures, stuffed animals, fursuits or similar items.
We do not allow tattoos, dakimura, graffiti, fancy car paint jobs, or screenshots. Nor do we allow memes/image macros.
We do not allow photography. Except high quality photos of illustrations, executed in a way that the photograph is mostly indistinguishable from a scan. (which is to say, no 'artsy' photos with your markers in the corner)

We do not, under any circumstances, allow stories, except in descriptions or occasionally comments. Stories are not intended to be the main focus of our content. We focus on visual illustrative media, and computer graphics.

I'm not saying this to be rude, but there are blind furries, this is 100% true. Many blind people still retain an amount of visual perception. Those who have enough visual perception to enjoy art may make use of our website. If someone is blind enough that they can no longer appreciate visual images, then they are probably not part of our target audience.

They have no interest in being on our website, and likely already have websites where they go to for their stories.

While an "e621" for fiction would be interesting, it is not within our scope.

If you want it, go make it yourself, please.

I'm not saying this to disagree with your premise, as I also think the website works fine as it already is. However, I recall specific examples where "memes" and "screenshots" have been allowed to stay on the site. It contradicts that list of what's not allowed, such as this example down below. It seems to me that the rules become temporarily suspended, when an admin finds something humorous enough. Of course this is a rare occurrence and is still an image-based file, but it only contains text so I felt I should point this out.

post #306169

tritlupo said:
Text will make E621 more inclusive; there are a few blind furries arround the world.

How is that a justification? Blind people can't read text the same way then can't look at an image. Am I missing something here? I suppose someone can read text to them and get the same experience, as oppose to describing an image that can't be properly appreciated regardless. I don't think that would be enough to enable new formats though.

TwistedLogik said:
How is that a justification? Blind people can't read text the same way then can't look at an image. Am I missing something here? I suppose someone can read text to them and get the same experience, as oppose to describing an image that can't be properly appreciated regardless. I don't think that would be enough to enable new formats though.

Don't you know what a refreshable braille display is?

SnowWolf said:
Let me try again, since you didn't follow the first time:

e621 is a visual art repository focusing exclusively on illustration and digital graphics.

We do not allow statues, sculptures, stuffed animals, fursuits or similar items.
We do not allow tattoos, dakimura, graffiti, fancy car paint jobs, or screenshots. Nor do we allow memes/image macros.
We do not allow photography. Except high quality photos of illustrations, executed in a way that the photograph is mostly indistinguishable from a scan. (which is to say, no 'artsy' photos with your markers in the corner)

We do not, under any circumstances, allow stories, except in descriptions or occasionally comments. Stories are not intended to be the main focus of our content. We focus on visual illustrative media, and computer graphics.

I'm not saying this to be rude, but there are blind furries, this is 100% true. Many blind people still retain an amount of visual perception. Those who have enough visual perception to enjoy art may make use of our website. If someone is blind enough that they can no longer appreciate visual images, then they are probably not part of our target audience.

They have no interest in being on our website, and likely already have websites where they go to for their stories.

While an "e621" for fiction would be interesting, it is not within our scope.

If you want it, go make it yourself, please.

Challenge considered.

SnowWolf said:
We do not allow graffiti.

I am not trying to be a troll.
post #108926

TwistedLogik said:
I'm not saying this to disagree with your premise, as I also think the website works fine as it already is. However, I recall specific examples where "memes" and "screenshots" have been allowed to stay on the site. It contradicts that list of what's not allowed, such as this example down below. It seems to me that the rules become temporarily suspended, when an admin finds something humorous enough. Of course this is a rare occurrence and is still an image-based file, but it only contains text so I felt I should point this out.

post #306169

*closes eyes*

The above listed scope-of-site-intent is reflective of the current state of the website, as of the time of this writing, at 5:01PM, CST, on the 27th of March, in the Year of Our Lord 2019. It shall henseforth be stated that the rules and regulations of this website may, over the course of the ongoing procession of time, occasionally change, be altered, or potentially make dramatic adjustments in the face of the ever-mutable force of evolution.

Such forces have previously instilled great change upon the website. At one point in time, many currently unsanctioned forms of image-based media were allowed, including," SnowWolf pauses to scroll back up the page, and adjust her glasses, leaning closer to the screen, "statues, sculptures, stuffed animals, fursuits, photos of tattoos, dakimura, graffiti, fancy car paint jobs, screenshots, memes/image macros (baring, of course, the circumstance that the art has been created exclusively for that iteration of the macro), and photography in general."

The wolf straightens back up, looking towards the audience again, paws folded neatly in front of her. "It is likely the rules will, at some point, face further adjustment, and at that point in time, the administrative staff will discuss the options in regards to the content currently on the site. In some circumstances, content is retroactively deleted to comply with the rules. However, in most circumstances, we allow older content to be grandfathered in, as is the circumstance with that 6 year old post."

TwistedLogik said:
How is that a justification? Blind people can't read text the same way then can't look at an image. Am I missing something here? I suppose someone can read text to them and get the same experience, as oppose to describing an image that can't be properly appreciated regardless. I don't think that would be enough to enable new formats though.

....

Okay.

Many people with visual impairments still retain some degree of vision. They may read with the font size increased, or use some other software to improve their reading experience. if you're on windows, there are a number of Ease of Access options that are specifically designed to make "blind" people better able to use a computer. This includes, font sizes, the color and size of the cursor and mouse pointer, brightness options, color settings, magnification settings, color inversion, color filters (including filters for colorblindness, which is neat), high contrast settings and, most relevantly, a narrator which will read shit on your screen for you.

Additionally, there are some adjustments made for those who are hard of hearing, as well as those with physical impairments: Speech-to-voice is not just for asking Alexa to play Despacito. you can, to some degree, operate your computer with only your words. There's a onscreen keyboard you can use if you have limited mobility. There are a LOT of things you can do, just with windows, to make life easier if you have an impairment.

Being blind doesn't mean you turn into a lump on a log and are helpless to do anything.

tritlupo said:
I am not trying to be a troll.
post #108926

that post is 8 years old. meaning that it was uploaded half decade before the staff decided that photography is no longer allowed here.

this is written in the uploading guidelines:
https://e621.net/wiki/show/uploading_guidelines

Any submission before 2015 has been grandfathered in and does not need to reflect our current or future guidelines. In fact, there is a substantial amount of old art that would be deleted under the current guidelines, the existence of those old submissions do not validate or invalidate anything on this list.

TwistedLogik said:
I'm not saying this to disagree with your premise, as I also think the website works fine as it already is. However, I recall specific examples where "memes" and "screenshots" have been allowed to stay on the site. It contradicts that list of what's not allowed, such as this example down below. It seems to me that the rules become temporarily suspended, when an admin finds something humorous enough. Of course this is a rare occurrence and is still an image-based file, but it only contains text so I felt I should point this out.

post #306169

I have needed to handle some stuff from past and all I can say is that old staff gave zero fucks and had extremely personal biases, including deleting artists higher quality copies of artwork and warning artists because they are posting dublicates all the way to posting memes themselves and warning users for flagging the content admin uploaded and found funny.

I would definitely not support this website if this was still the case and I can definitely see that this kind of stigma still lingers around.

This is exactly why at the top of uploading guidelines it has underlined and all,

Any submission before 2015 has been grandfathered in and does not need to reflect our current or future guidelines.

There's simply too much content content that staff just happened to like or dislike in past to be handled nowdays. We would require dedicated full time person to handle all everything like and have them admin status so that they can also handle effected accounts as well - while we are struggling to find people to handle current and upcoming content and situations already. Paid material, real life pornography and accidentally deleted superior copies are still handled no matter how old and flagging tool has option for all of these (you can provide deleted post ID in inferior/dublicate flag).

Ruikuli said:
that post is 8 years old. meaning that it was uploaded half decade before the staff decided that photography is no longer allowed here.

this is written in the uploading guidelines:
https://e621.net/wiki/show/uploading_guidelines

Well, I already knew that. I was trolling a just a little.

Edit: Sorry.

tritlupo said:
Don't you know what a refreshable braille display is?

Why not just get a sensory substitution device?

What about FLIF and PDF?

tritlupo said:
What about FLIF and PDF?

I think they've already discussed those file formats.

Lance_Armstrong said:
But if artists don't use it, it won't matter.

Well, artists won't use a format which can't be displayed on the internet at the moment. Browser support must come before artist adoption. The question is how to get browser support first. I think it's a matter of a different industry adopting it first, which kickstarts its ecosystem, like, for example, if cameras adhreded to that new format.

https://blog.chromium.org/2020/07/chrome-85-upload-streaming-human.html

AVIF support added in Chrome 85 beta.

Maybe HDR will be the feature that gets people, or big companies, to use it.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/chrome-and-firefox-are-getting-support-for-the-new-avif-image-format/

Mozilla will add AVIF support in Firefox 80. Both should be released in August. Other Chromium browsers will get it shortly after.

If artists are still using JPEG for images, I doubt they will move to AVIF. For full quality, artists will upload PNG instead. It could be useful for AV1 video uploads with AVIF thumbnails.

https://www.gimp.org/news/2020/10/07/gimp-2-10-22-released/

Improved HEIC and newly added AVIF support

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Firefox-Enables-AVIF-Default