Home > Desktop > Opera Skins will support animated GIF images

Opera Skins will support animated GIF images

March 12, 2007

opera-skin.pngWith the latest weekly build of the Opera browser, Opera added support for animated GIF images in Opera Skins.

I myself don’t use any skins, I like the native look and feel of Windows, but apparently I’m in a small minority. Opera Skins allow you to customize the look of the browser with a simple click of a button. Using skins you could make Opera look like Firefox or any other browser.

Links:

Advertisements
Categories: Desktop
  1. Bo
    March 12, 2007 at 1:11 pm

    I can’t imagine that this will be useful. But I don’t count, I disabled all GIF-animations in Opera 🙂

    But Skins can be more than eye-candy. I use nontroppo’s “Breeze Simplified MICRO” to save space and get some extra pixels for the rendering-area. 🙂

  2. March 12, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    I use the standard skin as well. Although, I’m interested in other’s ideas for any “usability/accessibility” improvements and wishes for the standard skin.

    Example- I tweaked it a bit to get some more contrast between the active and inactive tabs– I can hardly tell on the default skin which is active, especially when you get the tab loaded in the background with blue text (see the tab on the right in this picture) due to the “visual weight” it adds to the tab. …but maybe I’ve got problems with my eyes.

  3. March 12, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    Why go with .gif, and not .svg? :S

  4. March 12, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    Personally, I love the default skin. The only ones I’ve ever like more than the default were scipio’s Carthago skin, and the Opera 6 skin (which I currently have on all of my computers).

  5. Cyro
    March 12, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    Very unstable and should be avoided by all skin artists!

    I hope next weekly fixes this issue

  6. Kc4
    March 12, 2007 at 3:31 pm

    Sweer 😀

  7. Frederik
    March 12, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    Hm, I thought gif had died out…

    The big minus for gif is the lack of partial transparency, which makes it really hard to produce high-quality icons. But unfortunately, there’s hardly an alternative for animation.

    MNG was trying to allow PNG-quality animations, but that format just didn’t gain much attention. Maybe people were just tired of animation at all…

    SVG has great animation capabilities, but there’s hardly any authoring software (for the animation part) available, and not everybody likes hand-coding images. And Opera’s performance seems to be way too bad to use it for skins. But true SVG skins (animated or not) would be a big plus!

  8. Kc4
    March 12, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    I use gif for transparancy and animation, and pngs for everything else. Wikipedia is trying to get people to use SVG, but until IrfanView supports it I will not.

  9. March 12, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    I personally like the Windows Native skin except for when I’m on a computer that has the Windows Classic skin (any version of Windows older than XP); then native looks ugly. With Vista and XP the native skin looks great, IMHO.

  10. treego
    March 12, 2007 at 5:12 pm

    The problem with the native skin is that when cycling pages with Ctrl-Tab or Right-Click-&-MouseWheel is that new/refreshed pages do not show in blue text (as opposed to black text) as they should. This is a long-standing bug with the native skin. If someone can explain how to repair that aspect, I would appreciate it.

    There is a Tweaked Native skin here that addresses this particular issue, but the Tweaked Native skin has some major display issues on the Speed Dial page.

  11. March 12, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    I myself don’t use any skins, I like the native look and feel of Windows, but apparently I’m in a small minority.

    I can fully understand. If I’m using Opera on Windows, I always use the native skin. Too bad there is no such skin for GTK based environments …

  12. March 12, 2007 at 6:27 pm

    Isn’t that a bit odd not to mention in the changelog. Well at least a nice feature to add, though I hope Skin designers won’t go crazy with animations.

  13. March 12, 2007 at 6:37 pm

    Mathias wrote

    Too bad there is no such skin for GTK based environments …

    Searched for Gnome?
    http://my.opera.com/community/customize/skins/?search=gnome&x=0&y=0

    I use modified Zeus skin both on Win and even on KDE 🙂

  14. March 12, 2007 at 9:44 pm

    I myself don’t use any skins, I like the native look and feel of Windows

    Well, the default theme in Opera doesn’t look and feel like Windows… e.g. the blue tabs don’t look native neither in Classic nor Luna.

  15. March 12, 2007 at 11:19 pm

    I use gif for transparancy and animation, and pngs for everything else.

    Why not use PNGs for transparency also? PNG has every advantage over GIF unless you need animation… And even animation may no longer be a limitation in due time.

  16. Xenofur
    March 13, 2007 at 5:40 am

    In many cases, especially when dealing with small images, gif has a size advantage over PNG. So you can’t claim PNG has the definite advantage. 😉

  17. March 13, 2007 at 11:51 pm

    In many cases, especially when dealing with small images, gif has a size advantage over PNG. So you can’t claim PNG has the definite advantage. 😉

    Are you sure? Even if you save the PNG in 256-color, and optimized with tools like pngcrush and PNGOUT?

  18. March 14, 2007 at 5:05 am

    I use gif for transparancy and animation, and pngs for everything else. Wikipedia is trying to get people to use SVG, but until IrfanView supports it I will not.

  19. Jeff Bailey
    March 14, 2007 at 8:32 am

    I’m more retro than GT500. I still use Rijk van Geijtenbeek’s Opera 5 skin. Unfortunately it hasn’t been updated since v7, but I’m probably not missing too much. Animated gif’s won’t add any thrill to my browsing experience.

  20. March 15, 2007 at 11:50 am

    In many cases, especially when dealing with small images, gif has a size advantage over PNG.

    Yeah, but in my experience, they have to be really small (~16×16 pixels, sizes under 1KB) to get to that point. I’ve been using 8-bit indexed PNGs with binary transparency — equivalent to GIF in capabilities, so IE6 can handle it without hacks — on my sites for several years, and it’s only when the dimensions get down to emoticon size that I start seeing GIF compress better than PNG.

    I keep meaning to look up the format description and see if the PNG header is bigger. It could just be overhead.

  21. March 19, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    The overhead people see with PNG files are usually PNGs whit metadata stored in the final image. There is no reason for storing it in the final product like for a theme for Opera.

    Without the metadata PNG files should be smaller than GIF file, thought there will always be occasions a GIF can be smaller.

    PNG files are quite a bit more complex than GIF files, adding poor output support (even from some versions of Adobe Photoshop) adds to the confusion about PNGs real potential.

    MNG as was mentioned is a lot more complex, and does not even have the same file signatur, making it far from compatible with most PNG decoders. At lest APNG has a fallback for single image display for decoders that doesn’t support APNG. But then again, how many of you have ever heard about APNG. Maybe SVG could give us what we want. Though not heavily supported out there yet, it is at least getting somewhere. And vector graphics looks so much nicer after all. Doesn’t it!?!

  22. May 8, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    Ctrl-Tab or Right-Click-&-MouseWheel is that new/refreshed pages do not show in blue text (as opposed to black text) as they should. This is a long-standing bug with the native skin. If someone can explain how to repair that aspect, I would appreciate it. exactly . very good works

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: