https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35335
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Friesen <[email protected]> --- I'm even more inclined to think we should be using css3 animations instead of an animated .gif for this now. I did a little testing on the watch icon and there is a notable performance difference between the use of a .gif and a css3 animation. A single running animated .gif makes Chrome on my computer renders the page at ~33FPS. While using a proper css3 animation instead renders at the complete 55-60FPS. .gifs are inefficient. Because they are image frame based rather than a simple instruction like "rotate this" the browser has to re-draw images for each frame. As a result a css3 animation which gets to use the GPU to make simple modifications will always perform better. And will also do a much smoother animation. (Fixed frame list vs. a rotation that can create a frame for any point in the rotation and animate at the refresh rate). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
