Why does it say creepy?

Give him lego guy arms.

Its just the irony of it thats funny to me.

Dude, that's so cool.

sorry to say, but this link you posted is only somewhat right and is merely a lawsuit prevention technique. The fact that ALL epileptics suffer from varying factors of the condition is generally correct EXCEPT for the frequency of flashing. I am NOT denying that ppl havent had seizures from websites flashing but the likely hood is minimal. an epileptic has better chances of seizing due to watching fireworks or even watching tv for hours than flashing on a website. MOST epileptics happen to have an "episode" (as its called in the medical field) to INTENSE strobe-type lights because they are generally MORE intense in light intensity & frequency between flashes. This is why epileptics (for the most part and depending on DPS/DOT regulations) are only authorized to drive during the day a certain amount of time before OCT (Official Civil Twilight (BASICALLY the time from sun-down just way more accurately defined)) as well as a certain time after OCT (" " sun-up) due to the potential of emergency vehicals responding to calls (in which the intensity of light is magnified significantly). For example, my wife is epileptic, and in the state of Oklahoma she has to be free of seizures for one (1) year no matter the type/severity of the seizure and have consent of a doctor proving she is safe to drive before she is even allowed to apply for a permit to drive...HOWEVER in New York, she is required to have written documentation of her seizure, AND a written and signed statement from her doctor that she is ok to operate a vehical.

Besides, all that the fact to take precaution is only a mere act of consideration, but being the husband of an epileptic, this doesnt excuse the person from taking the medicine they are perscribed to prevent major, or incidental episodes. Also for those who want to bash me about medicine not always working...i will just add that i know meds dont always do what they are supposed to do. this is called a "break through" seizure. this happens ~once/year for those who actively and consistently take their medicine and is the result of the body reaching a plateau in the dosage of medication they recieve (caused by time, the medicine dose is no longer high enough to sustain the prevention of seizures).

anyways, this subject is a case-by-case basis and does not apply to all epileptics, or applies differently to the individual. but common sense dictates to those with said condition should either have been taking their meds OR just not look at the page.

Info on the link may be exaggerated, like many things are, but on the other hand keeping the web clean of flashing it is one of the easiest things to do to help and support these people. Other people can get a headache from too flashy ads so most of should like the overall impact on the web of having that recommendation. Of course some day someone can get an idea to use this as an excuse for some too crazy rules and laws, but at the moment I think in it's current form that W3C recommendation in my opinion is not worth fighting against.
Just my opinion.

im not trying to start a fight or nothing. Yes its a common courtesy to vary the intensity, however, its also a common courtesy for those with an epileptic disorder to be taking their medication, or just not look at the page. As far as headaches are concerned, (again not trying to be mean but) these people (if they knoow this kind of thing upsets headaches) should but taking ibuprofen, or whatever kills their headaches/migraines (it would likely be migraines cause migraines are usually assiciated with light/sound). either way it falls on the person looking at the web page. you and i both know that there could never be a law against a flashing web page, because not one country owns the internet...its a "publicly owned" thing so to speak...if the U.S. for example made a law banning flashing websites...there would only be Wikipedia, Yahoo and Google (of course this is exagerated a little...but for comparison purposes go with it...lol). Either way it is sliced its a user-discretionary topic...look at the page if you can handle it...dont if you cant.

THE ABOVE COMMENT WAS NOT MEANT TO HAVE AN ATTITUDE ASSOCIATED WITH IT...SOOO if anyone got the hint that i had and attitude, i wasnt writing it with and attitude in mind.

(removed by author or community request)

Ouch, you're better than that!

Tell me why exactly did you post this and without a warning? I'm considering to flag this comment as it looks like trolling. But I'd like to know an explanation.

Oh crap, that wasn't even me! My friend has been over for the past week and it must have been him. Sorry about that, I will confront him when I get home and change my password. >.<

He trolls a LOT, and this looks like his handiwork. Although I did chuckle for a second, it is still messed up. I will delete it.

Of course, anybody who has this sensitivity will also have the sense to click back, scroll down or simply look away.

It's rather patronising to assume that anybody with anybody with any sort of condition or syndrome lacks the ability or responsibility to look after themselves, don't you think?

I don't know really how fast this effect can take place or how much a person can help themselves if the image has already appeared in sight. Probably people in danger can turn off all images in browser but that would make web boring, don't you think? There has been an addon for firefox to do this only for aimanted gifs, but it seems do be discontinued. I think it would be much more polite to keep the web usable also for people who are sensitive for this kind of stuff not to leave people with illnesses and disabilities alone to deal with their problem. There isn't much lost for other users if these gifs were one more click away and a word of warning given.

The organisation that makes web standards - which are absoutely good things not only from the standpoint of web developer but also from the standpoint of user - W3C reccommends not to use such images or banners. In US it seems to be mentioned also in some document named Rehabilitation Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosensitive_epilepsy#Web_design). As I'm not american I don't know how obligatory this document is.

I wonder if iproberry1's real avatar is jpg because instructables site has restricted using gifs there.

I don't accuse iproberry1 or anyone else for not knowing about this issue. I myself only know this because of being in the web development business. But I would be grateful, and also all the people with this photosensitivity would be, if the issue would not be ignored after informaton about it has been given.

I agree with you on the politeness issue and making the choice to view be only one click away. I do not personally have a disorder triggered by flashing lights, but it would be very irritating to feel like some of my favorite browsing had been booby-trapped.

Also, not everyone with this form of epilepsy knows that they have this epileptic trigger until it happens. Remember the Pokemon cartoon incident in Japan about 15 years ago? The flashing was at exactly the wrong frequency and hundreds of children were affected.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/17/video.seizures.update/

Thanks for the supportive word.

Yes I've heard about that Pokemon story. I watched the video again and that flashiness looks pretty modest compared to what could be. Colors may play a role of course. But it makes me very cautious how much mess can be made by something so nonobtrusive for a not affected persons eye.

Attacks brought on by flashing lights are not instant (if they did, we would have to ban police lights!). I teach a girl with such severe photosensitive epilepsy that her doctor has banned her from using computers in school, but it actually takes several minutes of exposure before she has an attack - she has plenty of time to recognise that she is in a dodgy situation and remove herself from it.

As for here, you can use animated gifs as your avatar, but you can only see the animation when you go to the member's orangeboard and click on the avatar there to see it full-size.

I took a peek. I like it. The lid is a nice addition.