Commons:Deletion requests/File:Color Flash.gif

File:Color Flash.gif

Does this really have a realistic educational purpose that outweighs the risk of giving people seizures? Dronebogus (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep Yes, and the Streisand effect made it seen by more people. --RAN (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Then what is the supposed use? Dronebogus (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Some people might suggest that people at risk of seizures shouldn’t click on random links, especially those accompanied by a warning. But the advice I remember seeing on MDN Web Docs is that websites should take more responsibility for this issue, giving clear warnings and controls on each page with problematic material. What does the Commons community think? Brianjd (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think seizure-risk material should only be in video format and always have “(photosensitivity warning)” in the title. This goes beyond COM:NOTCENSORED as a genuine, objective health risk. Dronebogus (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus I added this DR and several others to the newly-created categories Seizure risk-related deletion requests/pending and Seizure risk-related deletion requests/deleted. But, incredibly, I also added one to Seizure risk-related deletion requests/kept: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Status.gif. That DR has extensive (but very old) discussion. Perhaps it’s time for a new discussion. Brianjd (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus The educational purpose is given in the description (emphasis added):

This is a very quick cycle of colors. It can be used to fix "stuck pixels" on displays. There is a 30 millisecond delay between each frame, meaning that the frame rate is about 33.3 frames per second. The colors are flashed in the following order: blue, red, and green.

But is this realistic? Can this quick cycle actually fix stuck pixels? I have no idea. Brianjd (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s sufficient reasoning, and once again it does not need to be a gif. It could be a video which doesn’t automatically play. Dronebogus (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus I advertised this DR at Commons:Village pump#Seizure risks. Brianjd (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Tuvalkin Reason? Brianjd (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete Not really educational. I don't think that "fixing stuck pixels" is among Commons' primary goals. —capmo (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Capmo The idea that stuck pixels can be fixed a certain way (if true) is clearly educational. Brianjd (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep "risk of people getting seizures" isn't a reason for deletion. Enhancing999 (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Tuvalkin, Capmo, and Enhancing999: Seizures are not merely uncomfortable; they are a serious medical issue that can require hospital treatment. Given the comments above, I wonder if anyone except Dronebogus understands that. Brianjd (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep me out the shame list, I didn't add any comment. Thing is, looks like I know way more about seizures than you know about file formats: The idea that a 33⅓ Hz GIF can be replaced with a video is ludicrous. (On the other hand: Can even a GIF fix stuck pixels? I am not sure.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin A vote with no comment could be seen as an implicit endorsement of relevant discussion above the vote. I never said that GIFs have to be replaced by videos – that was Dronebogus. I only said that we need to agree on some measures to reduce seizure risks. Finally, even you seem to be admitting that this file might not be in scope. Brianjd (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

People with that risk need some coping strategy. Deleting the internet doesn't really sound like an efficient one. Browser plugin? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

We’re not “deleting the Internet”. Stop being so dismissive and inconsiderate. It’s like saying wheelchair users should have contraptions to climb stairs so you don’t have to put in a ramp. Dronebogus (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see you proposing a ramp. We are trying to delete every image that might be an issue, aren't we? Enhancing999 (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

No my “ramp” is proposed at the village pump. And there aren’t many images, and they aren’t very useful. Dronebogus (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. According to https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/best-software-solutions-to-fix-a-stuck-pixel-on-your-lcd-monitor/ , flashing colors may fix stuck pixels. Glrx (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep Without looking for that I claim PSE users have animations disabled (via some browser plugin) and will need to click on the image to enable animation. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 16:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-stop-gifs-from-auto-playing-in-your-browser Glrx (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Kai Burghardt and Glrx: MDN (cited above) suggests that this is not best practice.

  Also, from the cited PCMag article:

  • Firefox: Either click through a deliberately scary warning screen, or install an extension that merely stops existing animations.
  • Chrome: Choose from two extensions that have been removed from the store or two extensions with version numbers less than 1, no updates since 2015, no privacy declaration (despite there being a prominent section for this in the store) and complaints that they either don’t work or break sites.
  • Opera: Used to have a built-in option for this, but now you have to do it the hard way: download an extension to install Chrome extensions, then install one of the dodgy Chrome extensions mentioned above.
  • Internet Explorer: (no longer supported)
  • Edge: Not possible
  • Safari: Use an old extension that may not work.

  I tried searching the Mozilla add-ons site; the first relevant add-on I found was Toggle Animated Gif. But it also sounds scary:

  • This add-on is not actively monitored for security by Mozilla. Make sure you trust it before installing.
  • It claims to be a very simple Addon, yet it needs to read and modify browser settings and may also ask to access your data for all websites.

  Maybe this is just normal add-on stuff, nothing really scary. But people who aren’t computing experts don’t know that. And that still leaves the question of how we know this add-on (or any other add-on) can be trusted. Brianjd (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep This image is firmly within COM:SCOPE and has a valid educational use with respect to stuck pixels, as has been established above. It also does not appear to be a copyright violation nor a violation of any other sort of U.S. law. There is nothing else in the deletion policy that could plausibly justify deleting this, so this file should remain on Commons. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)