From LifeWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is it a good idea to try to sneak LifeViewer animations into some of the snippets on the main page? If so, here's the RLE for the boring static image I created...

x = 85, y = 121, rule = B3/S23 39bo$38bobo$38b2o5$19b2o$19b2o$23b2o$23bo$21bobo$21b2o7b2o4b2o$30b2o4b 2o8bo$45bobo$46b2o$2o40b2o$2o40b2o7b2o$38b2o10bobo3bo$38b2o11bo3bobo$ 55b2o3$43b2o$43b2o7$10b2o$10b2o3$15b2o$15b2o3$23b2o$22bobo$22bo$21b2o 2$39bo$38bobo$38b2o3$31b2o37b2o$31b2o7b2o28b2o$40bo$38bobo$38b2o$21b2o $21b2o20b2o24b2o$11b2o30b2o24b2o$12bo$12bobo$2bo10b2o$2b3o$5bo$4b2o3b 2o64b2o$9b2o64b2o5$17b2o$8bo7bobo63b2o$7bobo6bo65bobo$7bobo5b2o32b2o 32bo$8bo39bobo$49bo4$32b2o$13b2o17b2o39b2o$13b2o9b2o46bobo$25bo45bobo$ 22b3o47bo$22bo2$23bo$22bobo47b2o$22bobo47bobo$20b3ob2o47bo$19bo$20b3ob 2o$22bob2o$70b2o$32b2o16b2o18bobo$32b2o7b2o7bobo18bo$18bo22bo9bo$17bob o19bobo$17bobo19b2o$18bo3$19b2o$19b2o37b2o$57bobo$58bo3$35bo$34bobo$ 25b2o7bobo$25b2o8bo$36b3o$38bo5$54b3o$54bo$55bo$38b2o$38b2o!

Dvgrn (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why not -- the worst that I can see happening is that people who browse with Javascript etc. disabled won't get to see the animation, but that's neither a big deal nor likely to affect all that many people to begin with. (Though speaking of which, does the LifeViewer plugin have or allow a graceful fallback of some sort?) Apple Bottom (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hm, yeah, seems like the kind of thing that's obviously possible somehow but I don't have any idea what might be the best way to do it.
We're already gradually making the LifeWiki less friendly for Javascript-disabled browsers, by increasing the proportion of articles that have LifeViewer-based illustrations instead of static images. But it seems like that's a decision that has been made, and nobody has been complaining about it.
I'm not sure I'd want to commit to the extra steps needed to specify a fallback static image if LifeViewer can't load -- and presumably to upload that image if it isn't already there. If such images could be generated completely automatically, that might be okay.
But speaking of automatically-generated stuff, how many RLE: namespace pages are there now, where the same RLE is not represented in the downloadable pattern collection? How much bigger would the pattern collection be at this point?
Given a list of the RLE:* URLs that need to be made into files, I could throw together something like an AutoIT script to do the conversion, and send the results to Nathaniel. Dvgrn (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
For regular articles, there's no reason we can't have both embedded LifeViewers and static/animated images -- so long as someone's willing to create them, of course.
Re: how many RLE: pages we have with no corresponding uploaded file, that's an excellent question, and the answer is that I Have No Idea(tm). It should be easy to generate and compare lists of both RLE: snippets and uploaded files, though. (Assuming that the same pattern would have the same pname in both cases, but I think that currently holds; and it's also a reasonable requirement to impose for when snippets are uploaded as "proper" files.)
Automatically identifying RLE-snippets-with-no-uploaded-files and converting them would be even better. FWIW, the uploading process should also be fairly easy to automate -- I'm mostly familiar with Perl, but I imagine a batch uploader would be straightforward enough to hack together in any language. Apple Bottom (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)