It is the Javascript/CSS that is doing all the fancy stuff not HTML per se. When the specs are finalized we will still need -ms, -webkit and -moz prefixes for things like rounded corners, shadows, etc. Probably for another five years at least. So it is not like all browsers are reading the same code.
Actually it is. The prefixes is just a small annoyance, that can be automated away. You just need 4 prefixed statements instead of only using the one in the standard. And in most cases, they are identical.
It's NOTHING like the era of browser wars (IE/Netscape) and incompatibility.
In fact, the prefixes are there so we don't repeat the mistakes of the same era --so that we don't get say, the border-radius implementation from Webkit to be different than the one in Mozilla and have sites depend on them, only the -moz vs -webkit- until the spec is ironed out, and they can converge to the actual one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
And you still have to test it in all those browsers as well.
Not that much. It's mostly trivial these days. Again: you should have tried this at the browser-wars era.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Animations and transitions are very tedious to code in JS, no two ways about it.
I actually find it quite easy. Tons of animations/transitions can be made with simple css declarations, and js frameworks take care of a lot of the rest.
Except if you mean "disney like animations", that kind that was easy with Flash. I don't see those as an integral part of the web experience, though. You could always code them with whatever and just render them as videos.
Except if you mean "disney like animations", that kind that was easy with Flash. I don't see those as an integral part of the web experience, though. You could always code them with whatever and just render them as videos.
You mean and then encode the video four different ways for each of the browsers in addition to a fall back for Flash.
All that information condensed into a tiny 800x500 square is the way of the future! I've always wanted to browse in cramped conditions - filling the rest of the browser window with that pus-yellow colour is excellent use of screen space! Loving the use of icons to represent the nutritional information as well - not sure which one tell me how much fat I've eaten, but I've burned so many calories just trying to navigate your site out of sheer frustration that it doesn't matter anymore!
Plus you really should create some smaller versions for mobile devices since they might be on 3G.
Out of those 4, OGG seems like the most suitable candidate. Open source and free. No licensing as with MP4.
I don't even know why Google even bothered with WebM. I can't even find any software to convert to the VP8 format needed for the video. The audio is in Vorbis format anyway so why not just use OGG? The mind boggles...
First of all they are very Cheap, Professional and Fast responding.
I know that a bad website experience can create bad feelings about your company. A poor mobile experience makes them less likely to engage with a company in the future.
After your site is converted to HTML5, search engines will be able to crawl and index it. Customers will then be able to search you, and view your website on any mobile device that they own, ultimately increasing in your search engine rankings....
Comments
It is the Javascript/CSS that is doing all the fancy stuff not HTML per se. When the specs are finalized we will still need -ms, -webkit and -moz prefixes for things like rounded corners, shadows, etc. Probably for another five years at least. So it is not like all browsers are reading the same code.
Actually it is. The prefixes is just a small annoyance, that can be automated away. You just need 4 prefixed statements instead of only using the one in the standard. And in most cases, they are identical.
It's NOTHING like the era of browser wars (IE/Netscape) and incompatibility.
In fact, the prefixes are there so we don't repeat the mistakes of the same era --so that we don't get say, the border-radius implementation from Webkit to be different than the one in Mozilla and have sites depend on them, only the -moz vs -webkit- until the spec is ironed out, and they can converge to the actual one.
And you still have to test it in all those browsers as well.
Not that much. It's mostly trivial these days. Again: you should have tried this at the browser-wars era.
Animations and transitions are very tedious to code in JS, no two ways about it.
I actually find it quite easy. Tons of animations/transitions can be made with simple css declarations, and js frameworks take care of a lot of the rest.
Except if you mean "disney like animations", that kind that was easy with Flash. I don't see those as an integral part of the web experience, though. You could always code them with whatever and just render them as videos.
Except if you mean "disney like animations", that kind that was easy with Flash. I don't see those as an integral part of the web experience, though. You could always code them with whatever and just render them as videos.
You mean and then encode the video four different ways for each of the browsers in addition to a fall back for Flash.
You mean and then encode the video four different ways for each of the browsers in addition to a fall back for Flash.
Four ways? Each of the browsers? Just do an MP4 version and kick Mozilla in the metaphorical groin.
This site has a lot of good slams against Flash?
All that information condensed into a tiny 800x500 square is the way of the future! I've always wanted to browse in cramped conditions - filling the rest of the browser window with that pus-yellow colour is excellent use of screen space! Loving the use of icons to represent the nutritional information as well - not sure which one tell me how much fat I've eaten, but I've burned so many calories just trying to navigate your site out of sheer frustration that it doesn't matter anymore!
McDonalds Menu UK
Four ways? Each of the browsers? Just do an MP4 version and kick Mozilla in the metaphorical groin.
Ogg
WebM
MP4
FLV
Plus you really should create some smaller versions for mobile devices since they might be on 3G.
Ogg
WebM
MP4
FLV
Plus you really should create some smaller versions for mobile devices since they might be on 3G.
Out of those 4, OGG seems like the most suitable candidate. Open source and free. No licensing as with MP4.
I don't even know why Google even bothered with WebM. I can't even find any software to convert to the VP8 format needed for the video. The audio is in Vorbis format anyway so why not just use OGG? The mind boggles...
Ogg
Ah, open sourcers. Don't have a leg to stand on since MP4 loosened its agreements.
WebM
MP4
👍
FLV
Plus you really should create some smaller versions for mobile devices since they might be on 3G.
Don't the carriers automatically ruin files and push out smaller versions to phones by default?
First of all they are very Cheap, Professional and Fast responding.
I know that a bad website experience can create bad feelings about your company. A poor mobile experience makes them less likely to engage with a company in the future.
After your site is converted to HTML5, search engines will be able to crawl and index it. Customers will then be able to search you, and view your website on any mobile device that they own, ultimately increasing in your search engine rankings....