Talk:Hand walking

Spotted skunk hand walking 

Nicolharper (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Animated image
Per WP:IUP, "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size. Keep in mind the problems with print compatibility mentioned elsewhere on this page." - the animated image of the athlete is 800k, and the static first frame (which is all a reader of a print edition will see) is indistinguishable from a very neat handstand. The static image of a man performing a less elegant handwalk seems enough to convey what is quite a simple concept, and it works in all formats. --McGeddon (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 800k does not seem unreasonably large, and it's pointless to attempt to illustrate a specific type of motion with a photo that fails to explain (or actually show) movement in any way. Readers who see the animation will instantly understand the topic, whereas readers who only see the first frame will see an inverted motionless person -- just as they would with any jpeg. Lambtron (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:IUP doesn't say not to use "unreasonably large" images, it says only to use "very small" ones. I wouldn't say that 800k was "very small" - most Wikipedia image thumbnails are well under 10k.
 * An inverted motionless person performing a perfect handstand with both hands flat on the ground, and looking at the audience, does not convey hand walking as clearly as a man overbalancing slightly, looking forwards, one hand lifting off of the ground and a trail of handprints behind him. If we had to pick one static image to illustrate the subject, the latter is much stronger. --McGeddon (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's what I saw in the jpeg: an off-balance inverted person supported by one hand (I didn't realize handprints were in the sand until you mentioned it, and had to enlarge the image to see them). It seems that the jpeg substitution is primarily for the benefit of print readers, who likely represent a small fraction of users. Having said that, I agree that it's important to support print readers too, and that print readers would be better served by a different static image. It occurred to me that the gif's frame order could be changed so that the first frame depicts an overbalanced hand-walker with raised hand. This would allow the image to effectively illustrate the motion for online readers, and also provide a more meaningful depiction for print readers. What do you think? Lambtron (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The jpeg substitution is both for print readability and file size (which has become a big deal again now that half of our readers are on mobile devices) - it reduces the overall size of the page by 80%, from 1.0Mb to 200k. If there's a good single frame in there, I think we should follow IUP's advice that "a static image with a link to the animation is preferred". --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The gif file size can be scaled down with image display size (e.g., 150px -> 159k), and it's practical to do so because the subject fills the frame with a high-contrast background and without distracting background elements. In fact, it's these very qualities that, IMO, make the gif (with proposed frame reordering) a more suitable illustration for print readers. I think this is a better solution than presenting a single gif frame to all readers because, as I mentioned earlier, an animated image is a far more effective way to illustrate this topic for online (including mobile) readers. IMO, this is a good compromise because it moves toward IUP's "very small" preference without sacrificing the animation that satisfies IUP's primary goal, which is to "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". Lambtron (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 159k is getting there - you could also reduce the image length. Which frame are you considering for print readers? Just from looking at it, every frame where the person's hand is raised has a lot of motion blur. --McGeddon (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How about 54k? I reduced file size to 116k by removing frames and cropping, and load size to 54k by limiting thumb size to 120px. The first frame shows a hand being lifted; there's a small amount of motion blur but I think print readers will understand what's happening. Lambtron (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 54k is much better than 800k. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)