First time was back in April:
http://hyperallergic.com/49498/the-ny-ti…

It's not an animated gif, it's an embedded mp4 (and yes, they've done embedded autoplay video on the home page before). The other media in the article, the ones by Spangler, are also embedded videos, not animated GIFs.

Also, the judges deduct 12 internet points from Paul Constant, and issue a warning.

I look forward to when they can put an animated image on the print edition, just like in the movies.

And no, I don't mean your kindlepad tabletto edition. I want an animated screen I can roll up and swat a fly with. Then I will know it truly is the future.

@4 Just like in Harry Potter!

@4: For some reason that makes me imagine that the paper will also be able to secretly broadcast back images of the newspaper readers to advertisers, so they can judge our attractiveness and decide if they want us to be the sorts of people associated with their brand. The idea of an advertiser being shown a picture of my anus when I inevitably run out of toilet paper and reach for the Spokane Spokesman-Review fills me with more joy than I should admit.

The fact that you can't even tell the difference between a gif and an embedded video speaks volumes for how much of an idiot you are Constant.

@6: "Dear The Seattle Times, please invent this technology!" times a million!

And yet, today: the NYT, still here. Borders...

@7: oh please will someone save us? from all the formats?

Also, it looks like it's down for now.

GIF OPINION!

@7

when you visit the page, it behaves _exactly_ like a gif.

but i didn't check the source code to verify....so i guess that somehow "speaks volumes on how big an idiot" i am too. or something.

@12

I'm sure it looks just like a GIF to you, but believe me, there are quite a few people using different browser/OS combinations who would be rather surprised at the notion that an embedded mp4 "behaves _exactly_ like a gif."

And then there's the folks who might want to save the file, open it up in an editor, and tinker with it... they'd run up against some differences right quick, too.

I'd pay $9.99/month for a newspaper that published in animated gifs ONLY

@13

So regardless of OS/browser combinations, does not 95% of the viewing population.see a simple image on loop?

Looked like that to me from Linux and Windows, IE and Chrome.

I'm going to go around tonight and talk about my favorite band that quite a few know about (5% of the population!). And if they've never heard of them, they are clearly idiots.

I was pointing out Akbar's weird hyperbole about an honest mistake that most people could have made.

I don't normally pigeonhole Sloggers based on the content of a single comment, but Akbar Fazil @7 just landed in the "dickwad" slot. He's gonna have to bootstrap his way out.

@15

So you didn't try viewing the page on your smartphone?

And the second point I made, about downloading and altering the image, isn't a small one; a very big part of the reason animated GIF images continue to be popular is the ease with which they can be modified.

I'm using Chrome and nothing on that page is moving.