Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Music Youtube Idle

OK Go Goes HTML5 171

Posted by samzenpus
from the can-you-feel-the-music? dept.
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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OK Go Goes HTML5

Comments Filter:
  • by suso (153703) * on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @02:30PM (#36900078) Homepage Journal
    • 1. OK Go - Probably brought initial wave of people to Youtube
    • 2. New video promotion trying to show support for HTML5, an open standard and helps bring an end to flash.
    • 3. Website message when visiting with Firefox 5: We're sorry, but this content was designed with the browser Google Chrome in mind.
    • 4. Google trying to not be evil, yet icons at the bottom saying "Made with some friends from Google"

    WTF? I think I'm going to throw up now.

    • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @02:50PM (#36900354)

      "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?

      • by rumith (983060)
        The difference is that IE used proprietary components and deliberately borked standards in order to achieve monopoly, and Chrome really uses open standards and protocols. The problem is that Google is developing it at such an astonishing pace that competitors are literally left in the dust. Oh, and I could also bring in the fact that Chromium is open source, but integrating its components into a browser with a substantially different architecture must be no easy task, so I think that doesn't really help.
        • 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

        • by Piata (927858)

          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)

          by bonch (38532) *

          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

          • by rumith (983060)
            1) There's more to Chrome than Webkit + V8 + rolling version numbers. There's WebGL, there's voice input, there's websockets, inline SVG, animated CSS3 and tons of other stuff. None of this is essential, I agree, but if an app uses one of these features, it automatically gets locked out of all the other browsers that do not support them. Check out http://caniuse.com/ [caniuse.com] - it has a pretty handy tool for browser feature comparison.
            2) Despite supporting MP3/AAC, Google willfully dropped H.264 support. I think it
            • by BZ (40346)

              > 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.

            • by BZ (40346)

              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

              • by DrXym (126579)
                NPAPI flash and ActiveX flash are virtually the same thing. The control / plugin DLL are just thin wrappers around the core Flash DLLs. Both wrappers would usually be installed at the same time.

                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.

                • by BZ (40346)

                  > 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.

        • by BZ (40346) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @04:03PM (#36901242)

          > 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.

          • by BZ (40346)

            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.

          • by arkenian (1560563)
            Its also how Netscape started. I HATED Netscape back when it first started competing with Mosaic for exactly this behavior... I always thought they got just what they deserved when IE torpedoed them. (okay, I admit, I made a bad call saying nobody would go with the ridiculous non-standard netscape extensions that just used up bandwidth, and it cost me a job, this isn't a love-fest for MS by any means... I jumped to ff shortly after it came out.)
          • by blirp (147278)

            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!

            • by BZ (40346)

              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.

              • by mldi (1598123)

                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.

                • by BZ (40346)

                  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

                  • by mldi (1598123)
                    One, you had "open standard" in quotes, just like I have it right here. You talking about reverse engineering it gave the impression that you were questioning the "open" part more than the "standard" part, which is what I was criticizing in your post. So you talking about the word "standard" in this reply post seems kind of pointless in context of my reply, unless you're telling me I misunderstood you in the first place. However, all you did was decide that I was some kind of fanboy. I swear you can't side
                    • by BZ (40346)

                      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,

        • by Lennie (16154) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @06:05PM (#36902322) Homepage

          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%

      • by v1 (525388) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @02:58PM (#36900454) Homepage Journal

        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

        "We recommend"? No. We DEMAND . If you mean it, say it. Or provide a "try it anyway" button.

        • by Rhaban (987410)

          There IS a try anyway button.

          If you would like to continue to allisnotlo.st anyway, click here.

      • If by "works best" they mean "opens 50 browser windows" then that's what I get using Chrome on Ubuntu.

        • by WiiVault (1039946)
          Same here on OS X Lion newest Chrome. Dozens of open windows and slow loading. Not impressed- especially since we all know HTML5 can do way better.
      • 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

      • by blirp (147278)

        "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.

      • 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.

    • Proof of concept, people. Nothing more.
      • Re:IRONY OVERLOAD (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @03:02PM (#36900514)

        Chrome Advertisement, people. Nothing more.

      • More than that. Proof of concept of a draft standard which no browser currently implements completely, consistently, or correctly.

        • 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

    • by UberLaff (730967)
      Google: "See OK Go in HTML5; a new proprietary format for Chrome by Google! Don't be evil!"
    • by Penguin (4919)

      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.

    • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

      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.

    • by exomondo (1725132)

      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.

    • 5. Open page in Chrome.
      6. It crashes while loading, displaying "Aw, snap!"
      7. ???
      8. Aw, snap!
  • Human Centipede II: The commercially-funded, neo-MTV sensation.
    • Seriously. I haven't even seen that movie, but the first thing I thought was human centipede.

  • 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

    • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @03:02PM (#36900506)

      sorry, shitty band.

      Opinions - you're entitled to have 'm.

      and even if it were great, wtf. since when did slashdot become an art channel for specific releases

      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?

      and having videos embedded in the fucking article?

      It's called 'convenience'. You may not appreciate it, but most people do. In fact, I think Slashdot should do so far more often.

      it's fucking '70s "artsy" too

      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.

      this was not enabled by the new gen web techniques. this is shit.

      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.

      also, they're not a sensation

      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.

      there's a fucking nintendo 3ds advert there.

      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.

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        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

    • by dyingtolive (1393037) <brad.arnett@NosPam.notforhire.org> on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @03:32PM (#36900916)
      Does the constant hate ever get exhausting? I mean, I know it's trendy nowadays, but it wears me the fuck out.
      • by gl4ss (559668)

        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"

        • 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. :/

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @02:50PM (#36900360)

    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.

    • by Yvan256 (722131)

      Three whole seconds? Wow, you're much more tolerant to that kind of crap than I am.

    • by EvilStein (414640)

      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...

  • "Left To My Own Devices" by the Pet Shop Boys? For those who do, the OK video looks only half as impressive.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    They tea bagged me multiple times in this video

  • At least Flash was pretty much playable in most browsers.

  • by Chetti (1959778) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @03:03PM (#36900522)
    I like Ok Go, They have an interesting way of using non-cgi to make interesting music videos... however looking at this video from a technical project standpoint... do the browser features (aka: HTML5) really add anything to this video? Don't get me wrong, the capabilities of the browser are really neat, and I bet it was quite the project to put this together. But, the technology doesn't really add anything visually to the video. It just stacks windows next to and on top of each other... might as well skip the multiple windows and just create frames or for that sake, just have them in a single video... I think Arcade Fire's video at http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/ [thewildern...wntown.com] was a lot more interesting and a lot better use of web-tech. For one, it used Google maps data in a little more interesting of a way than simply writing out your message w/ feet. Also, they were able to use single backdrop with objects popping up in windows in different areas rather than just a matrix of windows playing a different video stream.
    • by Hadean (32319)

      And Arcade Fire's music is a /lot/ better too...

    • by Amouth (879122)

      that is a very impressive example.. although i did laugh that on mine it had the guy running though cars..

  • by recrudescence (1383489) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @03:03PM (#36900524)

    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 ... :(

    • Note:. This didn't even work in Chromium. CHROMIUM!!! I had to get 'Google Chrome' for it to work.

      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.

    • by lennier (44736)

      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.

    • by baxissimo (135512)
      The thing is labeled as a "Chrome Experiment". It was the New York Times and Slashdot submitter that decided to advertise it as an HTML5 demo. Yes it uses some HTML5, but the name "experiment" implies it's an attempt to see what can be done with bleeding edge web technologies that may or may not be supported by all browsers just yet.
  • If you touch any of the dozen windows that it opens up things will not work as intended. Even tabing to the other windows just to see what it opened up will cause it to be a bit off in its presentation.
    • by Yetihehe (971185)
      It's because chrome doesn't support window.focus(). I know because I've made similar html5 app, but it somewhat worked under chrome, ie, safari and firefox (it can be done). Sorry that I don't post a link, but their servers won't survive slashdotting and the app isn't that cool either.
    • by poity (465672)

      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.

    • So there was a purpose to the 15 or 16 popup windows then?

  • by MaWeiTao (908546) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @03:07PM (#36900580)

    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.

    • "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. 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.
      • 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...

      • by mjwx (966435)

        "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)

    by luckymutt (996573) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @03:11PM (#36900632)
    Who the fuck is "OK Go" ??
    And why /. running an advert for them?

    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.
    • by WhiteDragon (4556)

      I'm glad I'm not the only one who had never heard of them.

      • by lennier (44736)

        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.

    • They didn't just use an HTML5 Codec, they used some features of HTML other than the video component.
  • by Jaktar (975138) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @03:18PM (#36900704)

    "This is a Chrome Experiment"

    and this is me closing the page *click*

  • by bonch (38532) *

    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?

    • 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.

  • 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...

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @04:20PM (#36901408) Homepage Journal

    I'm not saying this video is gay, but Marcus Bachmann says it's "fabulous".

    And he shits Frogurt, so draw your own conclusions.

    • by iggymanz (596061)

      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.

  • Hmph. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gh0st1nth3mach1n3 (554152) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @04:37PM (#36901564)

    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*

  • by jht (5006) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @06:37PM (#36902542) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • It was just a video playing across a bunch of windows - didn't seem very interractive to me. Oh, apart from entering a message and seeing video loops of the letters at the end. Maybe I'm just jaded by the WebGL work I've seen recently, but this didn't really impress me that much.Probably didn't help that I hated the video and the music, but meh.
  • by mldi (1598123)
    My god, I cannot believe how whiny everybody is being about this. For fuck's sake, nobody's twisting your arm.

Loan-department manager: "There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it."

Working...