OK Go Goes HTML5 171
edumacator writes "The YouTube sensation OK Go has just released their latest video using HTML5. The video is pretty cool itself, but the interactive feature is great." It looks like the interactive stuff only works in Chrome.
IRONY OVERLOAD (Score:5, Funny)
WTF? I think I'm going to throw up now.
This site works best with... (Score:4)
"This site works best with..." remember the loathe 'we' used to have for that phrase, because it was almost invariably followed by "Internet Explorer"?
Welcome to semi-recent developments where that phrase makes its comeback, now to be followed by Google Chrome.
So I'll augment my post from yesterday [slashdot.org] with:
How about installing Google Chrome when you want to watch an online presentation purportedly made using HTML5 standard tech?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the difference is not as big as some may think it to be, though.
Ultimately if a site developer chooses to use certain desired (by them) features that make the site work better in a particular browser and slaps on a "site works best in..." disclaimer, then it's still that site developer's doing.
Whether those features are proprietary (not counting ActiveX bits, which were rarely the reason for such disclaimers) or part of a work-in-progress standard (HTML5 has not been finalized) doesn't really matter
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't really call it astonishing. They are ahead of Firefox but not by much and some of their implementations are very rushed proof of concepts that will have to be re-written to match the changing standards.
For example, if you look at the implementations of the gradient property, everyone handles it the exact same standards compliant way, but older versions of chrome (under version 10) have some really screwed up and non-intuitive syntax to follow for it.
The whole point of standards is to future proof
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So it's more closed-open [extremetech.com] bullshit from Google?
If Chrome uses open standards and protocols, there's no reason for it to be Chrome-only. You say competitors are "left in the dust" because Chrome is developed at such an "astonishing pace" (it's easy to appear that way when you constantly bump major version numbers), but Chrome is based on the open source WebKit, the same engine Safari uses that was developed mostly by Apple. There's nothing particularly unique to Chrome except for its Javascript engine, which
Re: (Score:2)
2) Despite supporting MP3/AAC, Google willfully dropped H.264 support. I think it
Re: (Score:2)
> Despite supporting MP3/AAC, Google willfully
> dropped H.264 support.
No, they said that they will drop it. Sometime. Hasn't happened yet, no timeline announced, no mention of it since that one announcement.
Re: (Score:3)
NPAPI Flash (the kind that Chrome uses) is not commonly preinstalled on computers, though some OEMs do preinstall it. The commonly preinstalled thing is ActiveX Flash (the kind IE uses).
So yes, Chrome is helping spread Flash. And vice versa: the Flash installer (e.g. if you're using Firefox or Opera) bundles Chrome onto your computer if you're not careful
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome appears to be doing something different by bundling a version of Flash in the browser package itself. I doubt there is any performance benefit to this but it should make it easier to patch & replace Flash through Google's background update process.
Re: (Score:2)
> Both wrappers would usually be installed at the same
> time.
This happens to not be true for most OEM installs.
Chrome does indeed bundle a (somewhat hacked, actually) version of Flash with the browser, and update it using their updater.
Re:This site works best with... (Score:4, Insightful)
> and Chrome really uses open standards and
> protocols.
Except it doesn't. It uses a mishmash of open standards, proposed open standards, things they wrote up and threw over the "standards" wall, and flat-out proprietary extensions.
Seriously, try to implement CSS Animations based on the "draft spec". You can't. It's too vague to actually implement it without reverse-engineering WebKit first. And that's one of the ones that people are actually planning to standardize, unlike some of the other stuff Chrome is implementing.
> The problem is that Google is developing it at such
> an astonishing pace
The "problem" is that Google is implementing random things, exposing them to the web, encouraging people to use them, and maybe writing up a vague description of what the functionality is supposed to do (not enough to actually implement interoperably) and calling that a "standards draft".
Pretty similar to the way Microsoft did OOXML, actually. Except they wrote a better spec.
Re: (Score:3)
And to be clear, the real problems are encouraging people to use the new stuff and pretending it's open standards when it's not and when it's not ready for production use. And then people doing just that, whether because they don't know any better or because they don't care, on public-facing sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's too vague to actually implement it without reverse-engineering WebKit first.
Seems somebody already did that [webkit.org] for you.
Man! You are lucky tonight!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, just black-box reverse engineering is simpler in this case than trying to sort through their code.
And yes, someone did do it for me. And then I reviewed their work: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435442 [mozilla.org]
None of which makes CSS Animations an "open standard" as things stand.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, just black-box reverse engineering is simpler in this case than trying to sort through their code.
And yes, someone did do it for me. And then I reviewed their work: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435442 [mozilla.org]
None of which makes CSS Animations an "open standard" as things stand.
So now things aren't open if you can't understand it first glance? Now you're just being whiny.
Re: (Score:2)
A _standard_ is something that defines how something should work. A standard that cannot be understood is not useful. A standard that doesn't actually define behavior is not useful. Even if you'd like to hide your head in the sand and pretend that is is.
That doesn't mean I can't work with it via reverse engineering, but it does mean I'd appreciate you not trying to pretend that it's a "standard".
This is _exactly_ the criticism people had for OOXML, and it applies just as much to organizations you happen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are issues with both the "open" and the "standard" part of a lot of what Google calls "open standards". Creating an implementation behind closed doors and then throwing it over the wall (even with the source open), then refusing to make any changes to it when people have legitimate criticism about it not being implementable in other settings due to fundamental flaws is neither "open" nor "standard". It's a bit better than what Microsoft was doing with IE in the late 90s, but only barely.
> Lastly,
Re:This site works best with... (Score:4, Informative)
http://caniuse.com/ [caniuse.com]
It depends, if you look at the numbers:
"Calculation of support for currently selected criteria" (Recommendation, Proposed Rec., Candidate Rec., Working Draft, Other):
Current:
IE9: 58%
Firefox 5: 84%
Safari 5.1: 82%
Chrome 12: 89%
Opera 11.5: 76%
Near Future:
IE9: 58%
Firefox 6: 87%
Safari 5.1: 82%
Chrome 13: 89%
Opera 12.0: 79%
Farther future:
IE 10: 71%
Firefox 7: 87%
Safari 6: 82%
Chrome 14: 88%
Opera 12.1: 79%
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Almost everything in that list is pie-in-the-sky stuff of various sorts (in-progress specs, etc).
The IE10 numbers are based on the released IE10 preview builds.
The Firefox numbers are "stagnating" from Firefox 5 (released June 2011) to Firefox 7 (planned to be released Sept 2011). A few percentage points every three months is not that bad. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, on that site it is really easy to compare browsers, as you may know Chrome will remove a few video codecs:
http://caniuse.com/#compare=y&b1=chrome+13&b2=chrome+14 [caniuse.com]
http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html [chromium.org]
http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html [chromium.org]
So that is why it is dropping.
It is all based on things that can be checked/tested. The farther future numbers are very unclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it checks your user-agent and doesn't even give you the real page if you're not using Chrome. (It does, however, give you the option to go ahead and run it anyway. Maybe they added this recently.)
Using a user-agent switcher gives you the real page (it still doesn't work on Firefox). Although there are Firefox add-ons that allow you to easily change your user-agent, you don't need to install an add-on if you'd prefer not to. From about:config, find (or create) the "general.useragent.override" string valu
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that IE used proprietary components and deliberately borked standards in order to achieve monopoly,
Google are playing a similar game with WebM, WebP and SPDY. Maybe they're "open" (as in Google dumped a bunch of code and half baked specs out there) but it doesn't mean they're not divisive. We've already seen a schism over WebM and the same is likely to occur with the other specs. It's also likely that since Google holds the reins to these specs that even compliant browsers may find themselves playing continuous catchup to the "reference" browser and looking inferior by comparison.
The only way stuff like WebM is divisive is because the alternative (h264) has a license tied to it with a "promise" of not suing or charging a license fee (as long as it's not "commercial" use). They're just trying to offer a comparable and completely paid-license-free alternative. Is being "divisive" bad in that case? Simple answer: NO. Don't compare IE to Chrome at that point because they're not anywhere the same kind of battle.
Re: (Score:3)
> As long as the standards are open
Define "open"? Do you mean "we wrote up something based on our implementation, sorta, and published it", or do you mean "a bunch of people got together and figured out how this should work across a variety of use cases"?
The two cases are very different, and both have catastrophic failure modes as well as some amazing success modes.
Re:This site works best with... (Score:5, Insightful)
"We recommend"? No. We DEMAND . If you mean it, say it. Or provide a "try it anyway" button.
Re: (Score:2)
There IS a try anyway button.
If you would like to continue to allisnotlo.st anyway, click here.
Re: (Score:2)
If by "works best" they mean "opens 50 browser windows" then that's what I get using Chrome on Ubuntu.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, this is listed as a "chrome experiment", which means that while it's cool that you can make art out of multiple browser windows, this is far from the correct way to do it. HTML has long had far better ways to get the effects they've done here.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference being that we are embracing open standards, and using the full feature-set of HTML5. It's not Chrome-only, it's for any browser that adopts the standard. Sadly, Webkit is the only engine that has implemented most features, therefore Chrome/Chromium, Safari, and other webkit-based browsers work better.
It's not our fault that Mozilla is still living in the bronze age, and actually refuses to implement fairly easy to implement features that have been part of the standard for a long time (fuck, G
Re: (Score:2)
"This site works best with..." remember the loathe 'we' used to have for that phrase, because it was almost invariably followed by "Internet Explorer"?
Oh, you youngsters.
I, for one, remember when 'we' loathed it because it was invariably followed by Netscape.
(Though some tried to be cute and claim 'Mosaic')
M.
Re: (Score:2)
same thing happens with many gmail features, like desktop notification. it is not part of any standard, it does not work in any browser except chrome. but google says it is html5. sad times ahead i suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:IRONY OVERLOAD (Score:5, Insightful)
Chrome Advertisement, people. Nothing more.
Re: (Score:1)
More than that. Proof of concept of a draft standard which no browser currently implements completely, consistently, or correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Does any browser implement any similar standard completely, consistently, or correctly?
The question isn't whether anyone's absolutely correct, it's how far off people are. It's which browsers let us build cool shit, which browsers make it easy to at least write to standards "only" 4-5 years old and expect it to work pretty much anywhere, and which browsers are a hassle to support or are holding everyone back.
From experience, unless I'm doing bleeding-edge HTML5 stuff, it's reasonable to develop in my browse
Re: (Score:2)
This is what it says:
var isSupported = !isMobile && (isChrome || (isSafari && isMac));
view-source:http://www.allisnotlo.st/static/js/ImportJS.js
Which is just stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the video requires a browser that supports opening tens of windows and moving them around all over the screen for maximum annoyance.
Not a great sales argument for Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, it's been a few minutes and I'm still looking at "Loading...8%"
Is this really how good HTML 5 is? And if it's because the site is being Slashdotted, couldn't they have gotten a little more server space, considering they are "Internet pioneers" and this was a joint project with Google?
Maybe they could put out a Flash version that works.
Re: (Score:2)
3. Website message when visiting with Firefox 5: We're sorry, but this content was designed with the browser Google Chrome in mind.
This is what happens when you jump the gun and develop without a fucking standard. I think this is going to be even worse than the early internet days of IE.
Re: (Score:2)
6. It crashes while loading, displaying "Aw, snap!"
7. ???
8. Aw, snap!
AKA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. I haven't even seen that movie, but the first thing I thought was human centipede.
sorry, shitty band. (Score:1)
and even if it were great, wtf. since when did slashdot become an art channel for specific releases and having videos embedded in the fucking article? WHAT THE FUCK? it's fucking '70s "artsy" too, no pixels in sight. this was not enabled by the new gen web techniques. this is shit. sorry. also, they're not a sensation. on top of all that shit, there's a fucking nintendo 3ds advert there.
and yeah this post is like a youtube lame comment, but you know what, so is this fucking article. I bet i'll have to add s
Re:sorry, shitty band. (Score:4)
Opinions - you're entitled to have 'm.
Since the release involved HTML5, something that jives well within the 'nerd' demographic? (as does the band, to an extent, given that they're not generally 'pop' and make wacky videos).
Slashdot did the same with Radiohead's open sourcing of their music video:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/08/07/18/1436211/Radiohead-Open-Sources-Music-Video [slashdot.org]
Be glad that this time it was posted under Idle?
It's called 'convenience'. You may not appreciate it, but most people do. In fact, I think Slashdot should do so far more often.
While I, myself, am no fan of the style either, I don't think it's the video's content that is the reason for its posting.
I wouldn't know - it's apparently a "This site works best with (read: only with) Google Chrome". Can't be bothered to install it.
They may be riding the momentum from back when they very much were (you know, the treadmill thing). if nothing else, many sites pick up on new 'Ok Go!' video releases because, as mentioned above, it's always something rather different from what you'd usually see. As such, perhaps 'sensation' is too strongly worded, but it captures the general idea.
It's called AdBlock (or one of various alternatives) - you might want to look into it.
You seem very angry - I don't know why, it's not like you're all that new here.
Re: (Score:2)
the 3ds advert is in the linked youtube video, making slashdot show it, while having no bonus for slashdot for showing it. the site itself is just a chrome advert, designed to get people to download chrome, for no other reason than using js to sync videos in sub windows, the experiment would have been doable with flash, or even with animated .gif's. though I think the site might actually work in latest firefox builds if you faked the browser strings. it's not "rather different" either, that's the problem wi
Re:sorry, shitty band. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
that both your and my comments haven't been modded down just tells how stupid this article is. chrome is the new "works only in this xx browser" and "experiment" is a code word for "advertisement"
Re: (Score:2)
that both your and my comments haven't been modded down just tells how stupid this article is. chrome is the new "works only in this xx browser" and "experiment" is a code word for "advertisement"
And that's certainly a valid complaint. I can understand being annoyed/frustrated at that, and I'm inclined to agree with you. It's like you said however, "this post is like a youtube lame comment." I was just hoping for better. :/
Youtube Sensation??? (Score:5, Insightful)
WT Heck. This video is so annoying I couldn't even finish watching it. And a web site that says "You have to download and install a Google product to use me"? Um, no thanks?
It takes me about 3 seconds to leave a web site that says I have to download a Google product to view it.
Re: (Score:2)
Three whole seconds? Wow, you're much more tolerant to that kind of crap than I am.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And I think this band sucks. I didn't give a flying turkey about their last youtube video either, and I don't care about this one.
I don't have Chrome installed on this machine, and won't either. Oh well...
Does anyone remember (Score:1)
Offended (Score:1)
They tea bagged me multiple times in this video
So shatters the internet (Score:2)
At least Flash was pretty much playable in most browsers.
Arcade Fire's was better and why HTML5? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And Arcade Fire's music is a /lot/ better too...
Re: (Score:2)
that is a very impressive example.. although i did laugh that on mine it had the guy running though cars..
Google is evil. RMS was right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google. You're turning evil. In fact, over the last year you've turned way more evil than I could ever have anticipated. What with Chromebooks turning Chrome into a 'proprietary apps' platform, when those apps, save for their 'Chrome packaging' should have been normal webapps for any browser ... and now this.
I'm out.
Note:. This didn't even work in Chromium. CHROMIUM!!! I had to get 'Google Chrome' for it to work.
Don't you hate it when that blasted RMS eventually keeps turning out right all the time ... :(
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it does. I used SRWare Iron 12 [srware.net], which is built off the chromium source and it worked just fine. Perhaps you are using an older version of chromium.
Re: (Score:2)
orly? that's why it's on their page you troll
http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_download.php [srware.net]
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, over the last year you've turned way more evil than I could ever have anticipated.
You never anticipated this? How adorable.
My nightmares about Google tend to include orbiting battle stations and fleets of flying "Are You Feeling Lucky? (tm) search and destroy drones. That comes after the iRobot / Apple merger and the Roomba Wars, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It fails for me with: Chromium 12.0.742.112. It "loads" something to 100%, then goes back to 00% and idles there.
Very annoying you can't at least try it in other html5 capable browsers though. User agent branching fail.
Not as impressive if.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if I like this either. So they take away the annoyance of Flash, but now we have 10+ popup windows moving around on their own. It's not a refreshing change, and actually more annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
So there was a purpose to the 15 or 16 popup windows then?
Not a good sign... (Score:3)
The video and music are far from the worst thing I've ever seen. I mean, compared to the current state of American pop music this is high art. That said, this feels like pop music for people who like to pretend they don't like pop music.
And what happened with HTML5 being an open, cross-platform standard? I thought we had seen the last of browser-specific websites. Either the developers were too lazy to ensure this worked in all browsers or, far more likely, they were pushed into making this Chrome only. Either way, it doesn't bode well for HTML5 at all especially if companies are going to start offering proprietary variations.
It's probably not good for the future of Chrome either. Microsoft could get away with it because they already had massive market share by the time this sort of thing started happening. And at the time it happened mostly because developers couldn't be bothered to support other browsers.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing. It's just that so far nobody has a complete implementation, and different browsers have different parts working. At the moment it appears Chrome is the furthest along, and they're pushing people to use their working subset of HTML5 to the fullest with the whole "chrome experiments" thing. The others will catch up eventually.
Everyone caught up (Score:2)
At the moment it appears Chrome is the furthest along
Based on what? The fact this site only uses Chrome?
All of the webkit based browsers are neck in neck. There's no reason other than marketing this site could not use Safari or Mozilla.
Sadly changing the user agent alone does not appear to be enough to trick it...
Re: (Score:2)
"And what happened with HTML5 being an open, cross-platform standard"
Nothing. It's just that so far nobody has a complete implementation, and different browsers have different parts working.
It's worse then that. You've really got three groups trying to guide or co-opt the standard, Google is by far the least evil who is at least trying to create an open platform.
Then we have the other players who have very vested interests in keeping people locked into their respective platform, Apple keeping people locked into IOS and Microsoft with Internet Explorer.
So we're going to end up with 3 different standards, we've already seen Apple strong-arming sites into using H.264 and Apple's version of
WHO?? and Why?? (Score:4, Interesting)
And why
Also, their crappy site says:
>>We're sorry, but this content was designed with the browser Google Chrome in mind.
>> As a result, it may not work properly in your current browser. We recommend using Google Chrome.
"Recommend" ?? Bullshit. It won't let you see it in any other browser. That's not recommending.
In summation, a mediocre artsy group released a shit video using an HTML5able codec so they can be whored around by Google to get a greater browser market share.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who had never heard of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who had never heard of them.
You haven't? But they did that Youtube video with the treadmills, and the tracksuits, and the... oh, and apparently they're a band too? Hey, I didn't know that.
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom left side of the page (Score:5, Insightful)
"This is a Chrome Experiment"
and this is me closing the page *click*
Apple (Score:2)
So when Apple posts HTML5 demos that only work in Safari, everyone shit on them. I fully expect here on Slashdot to jump on Google's case for making this Chrome-only. Right, guys? Guys?
Re: (Score:2)
So when Apple posts HTML5 demos that only work in Safari, everyone shit on them. I fully expect here on Slashdot to jump on Google's case for making this Chrome-only. Right, guys? Guys?
Umm, exactly. More than every other up-modded comment here is blasting Google and Chrome.
Should add a warning on that... (Score:2)
The link to the "interactive" portion after putting in your message and hitting "Go" opens up 15 separate Chrome Windows. Thanks for the warning douchedot...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know... (Score:3)
I'm not saying this video is gay, but Marcus Bachmann says it's "fabulous".
And he shits Frogurt, so draw your own conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
Bachmann is also know to sway, lisp and gesture like a Liberace overdosing on hormone replacement. He has such a high internal gayness quotient, it exceeds the planck limit of gayness per cubic planck length, his core is collapsing into a gay dirac delta function at the same time radiating a massive fount of gaydons, which can transform normal baryonic matter into its gaydronic counterpart in the Queer Model.
Human Centipede (Score:2)
Gross!
Hmph. (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, so the message when visiting with Safari says "We're sorry, but this content was designed with the browser Google Chrome in mind. As a result, it may not work properly in your current browser. We recommend using Google Chrome." So I think, "Well, Chrome essentially cribbed their HTML5 engine from Safari, so I should be good. I'll give it a try." Unfortunately, there's no way to get past the message. Perhaps they should rephrase "It may not work in your current browser" to "We won't let you view this with anything but Chrome." Ah well. It will take more than an interactive movie video to make me install Chrome. *close*
Sorry, not playing here. (Score:3)
It's a cool idea and the YouTube video is neat, but requiring Chrome? Non-starter. I'm sure it's because they're pushing WebM video out, and so it's just another shot in Google's War On Apple (the WebM vs. H.264 battle again). No thanks. I use Chrome on occasion, but I refuse to use websites that require one specific browser even when it's supposedly up to standards.
Last summer when Arcade Fire did their Chrome Experiments video (the interactive film for "We Used to Wait"), it rendered really well on Safari and Chrome, OK on prerelease Firefox builds, and not really on IE8, but that was because it really was built in HTML5 and made concerted efforts to be neutral.
Did I miss something? (Score:2)
Whiny! (Score:2)
Re:This is the gayest shit I've ever seen. (Score:4, Funny)
You sir, owe it to yourself to observe more frequently the fecal matter of homosexuals. It will spare you the embarrassment of making such an incorrect statement again.
Re: (Score:2)
(facepalm) yet another shining example of functional illiteracy running rampant in our society.
"Literally".... good grief.
Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
+1 Insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What was with the separate windows anyway? I didn't see anything there (Even the messaging at the end) that couldn't be done with jQuery and some content injection into separate 'move around' divs under HTML 4.x. Could get the same effect, even better, since everything would be done on the same page rather than a bunch of separate windows. And compatible with multiple browsers.
Lame, really lame. Not impressed in the least.
However looking up at the blue women dancing almost seemed like you were watching them