SlideShare Ditches Flash, Rebuilds Site In HTML5 154
Frankie70 writes "SlideShare has ditched Adobe Flash technology entirely, and rebuilt its website using the HTML5 markup language. This means that SlideShare is now viewable on every kind of mobile device, from iPads to iPhones to Android devices and beyond."
Questions (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Who the hell are SlideShare?
2) Why would I care?
3) What makes it frontpage material for nerds?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is also the issue of content. Just because you use HTML5, it doesn't mean that all devices will magically be able to use your site. The video you are pushing still needs to be something that the clients can decode. This just avoids the "Steve won't let iPhones run Flash" problem.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Sure. But you can always serve the proper video to the proper user agent. This is no rocket science.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to sniff the user agent. The html5 video tag has provisions for sites to supply multiple formats and allow the browser to select the compatible one.
Re: (Score:2)
A "user agent" is a client of the HTTP protocol. This is the terminology used in the RFCs. I never proposed to sniff the "User-agent" field of an http request.
Multiple sizes of one format (Score:2)
The html5 video tag has provisions for sites to supply multiple formats and allow the browser to select the compatible one.
But does the HTML5 video tag provide for sites to supply multiple sizes of one format, such as 1080p, 720p, 480p, 360p, or 240p, based on the available bandwidth, processing power, and screen resolution? For a handheld device with a small screen and a slow, capped Internet connection, you might want to provide the low-detail version of a video.
Re: (Score:2)
It's getting towards the end of 2011, and people are still advocating the use of user-agent sniffing? What the hell? The past 20 years of experience with this being a horrible approach hasn't convinced you to avoid it?
Hmmm. You haven't been very involved in web development lately it would seem. Different devices make it for different UIs. Maybe you missed that part. If you think your website can display itself as nicely on a 320x480 screen through Edge as on a 1920x1200 screen through a 20MB/s DSL connection, well, you've made a heck of a lot of compromises. These devices are best recognized by their User Agent, which by the way is the way the web was designed to work from the start.
Re: (Score:2)
Does HTML5 have formal provisions for that sort of granular capability checking? I have been away from web development for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
The closest thing to that is new CSS media types that can apply to different devices. You can for example specify a CSS stylesheet for devices with less than 320 pixels of height. Or for devices with exactly 640px width.
This doesn't quite fit the bill completely, but it is a good start. It actually allows one page to display differently on different window sizes.
display:none (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. RFC 1945 officially introduced and recognized HTTP V1.0 in 1996. That's still pretty old, and it was designed for this very purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Please answer this question honestly: How old are you?
38. I don't see how it's relevant though. And I've been building website professionally for the last 15 years.
I ask merely because your comments come off as if written by somebody who is 12 or 13 years old, and who thus missed out on experiencing a large portion of the WWW's history.
Like others have pointed out, changing the content you're serving based on the User-Agent header value has always been a bad practice, and should be avoided. Every experienced web developer knows this.
Contrary to what you say, the User-Agent header was not originally meant to be used as you describe. Some of the earliest attempts at creating specifications, such as those from 1992 found at http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/HTRQ_Headers.html#user-agent [w3.org], clearly state that it was meant purely "for statistical purposes and the tracing of protocol violations." Neither of those advocate, nor even suggest, that the response should be modified depending on the header value.
Point taken, I wrote too fast.
Furthermore, you have clearly misunderstood the purpose of the WWW. It's a system for delivering documents that can link to one another. It is not about creating "UIs", like you mistakenly appear to believe.
A document is displayed to the user through a UI. Printing is on paper is a form of UI. Displaying it on a screen is a form of UI. By saying you don't need a UI, you're saying that you don't need the users to view your document.
When used properly, the exact same content should render perfectly fine on all sorts of devices with a wide range of capabilities and display media.
There's fine, and there's nice, which is pleasant to use. I guess your websites all look black & white (account for BW printers) with no ima
Re: (Score:2)
Old folks are often reticent to change their ways from what they learnt when they were a nipper, even if something better comes along. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
There you go. I am giving out examples, and people nitpick. How hard is it to understand that page layout CANNOT be the same on a 7 inch screen and on a 30 inch screen?
And no, CSS is NOT here to do page layout. It can help to some extent, but it cannot do everything one would need as far as page layout is concerned. You might even choose to put less information on every page and break down your site into more smaller pages. Try to do that with JavaScript or CSS.
I try to use javascript exclusively for user i
AJAX, details, the whole shebang (Score:2)
You might even choose to put less information on every page and break down your site into more smaller pages. Try to do that with JavaScript or CSS.
Have you ever seen a shebang (#!) in URLs on, say, Twitter or any Gawker Media site? That symbolizes an AJAX site [google.com]. AJAX sites load the HTML page and a script, and then the script decides what information to pull from the server. It could make that decision by sniffing the window width and height, converting that to ems, and using that to estimate what level of detail will fit above the fold.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not in the days of nested tables, but CSS has grown up since then, and absolutely can be used to do page layout.
From http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/htmlcss [w3.org] (emphasis mine)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link, very informative. I fail to see the rael-world application though.
I mean, if you go to the trouble of writing every "page" as an HTML fragment, why not go to the last mile and provide a pure HTML version of your site?
Let's say your site is called "foo.com". The help section would be "foo.com?help", then you render your links as being:
<a href="?help" onclick="loadPage('#help')">
The loadPage method would just call the data for "help" and modify the url to be foo.com#help. If javascr
Re: (Score:2)
why not go to the last mile and provide a pure HTML version of your site?
Because you don't know whether the next visitor will want the low-detail version or the high-detail version.
Re: (Score:2)
People navigating with JavaScript turned off will be glad to see something. Plus, you AJAX-based mechanisms might work well with Chrome, Safari and IE8+, and you might not want to get to the trouble to troubleshoot your UI on older IEs. GMail has a basic html interface. Do you think they did it so that they would "guess" what the user want? No, they know people want their mail. But there is a limit to how much time you want to throw in to support 3% of your audience.
Plus, an HTML-only version is perfect for
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not in the days of nested tables, but CSS has grown up since then, and absolutely can be used to do page layout.
I'm really sorry, I know this will not come out well, but the only possible explanation I can see is that you've never used CSS. At least never used to do page layout.
Page layout is controlled by HTML and CSS. CSS can hide, show, left or right float something, but that is about it. And that's already great. Let's take a simple example: I have a layout with three columns: The left menu, the right menu and the content in the middle. On small screens (say, <800px), I want both my menus to be on the left, on
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. Young folks often believe that because it justifies their apparent belief in new ideas that aren't really new, but tried before and discarded.
Re: (Score:2)
There are other options that work perfectly well. It's your right to choose not to use them of course. I respect that, contrary to you who disrespect what I do without actually knowing what I do for that matter. And you don't even want to know apparently.
Well said.
Low- and high-detail versions of one document (Score:2)
I have websites that work fine for years serving a smaller Logo to iPhones because, you know, they're slower devices with smaller screens.
This logo is an image document, and you want to send a low-detail and high-detail version. The content/style separation weenies would want you to A. send it in a vector format that looks good at any size or B. send a raster image using the progressive JPEG or interlaced PNG such that the device can terminate the download after the next pass would exceed the device's resolution. Should the user want to zoom in on the document, the user agent would then resume the download using an HTTP range request.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, come on. Let's get real over here.
Short vs. long documents (Score:2)
[Early HTTP drafts] clearly state that it was meant purely "for statistical purposes and the tracing of protocol violations." Neither of those advocate, nor even suggest, that the response should be modified depending on the header value.
Then why did HTTP never include a header expressing whether the user wants short or long versions of a particular document?
When used properly, the exact same content should render perfectly fine on all sorts of devices with a wide range of capabilities and display media.
It should render perfectly fine, but it doesn't download perfectly fine. Say you have an index page of a web site with a list of headlines and abstracts of news articles. On a mobile device, you want to render only the headlines so that they all fit above the fold. You could use a style sheet to hide the abstracts, but because you're sending the same document, the user still has to down
Re: (Score:2)
What you describe are actually two separate documents, and thus each should have its own unique URI.
For example, the URIs could be http://example.com/home [example.com] and http://example.com/m [example.com] for the long and short documents respectively. Then the URI http://example.com/ [example.com] would mean "redirect me to whichever version of the index document is optimal for my user agent". Choosing a document based on information other than the URI is commonplace elsewhere, such as a view of a user's page on a social networking site that depends on authorization: whether you're not logged in, logged in as a stranger, logged in as a friend
Re: (Score:2)
Only true if you insist on seeing the document as a textual replacement and not a dynamic entity.
Re: (Score:2)
It's getting towards the end of 2011, and people are still advocating the use of user-agent sniffing? What the hell? The past 20 years of experience with this being a horrible approach hasn't convinced you to avoid it?
So you want to serve the same content to all UA's on all devices?
Just think about that for a bit.
Separation weenies (Score:2)
So you want to serve the same content to all UA's on all devices?
In general, the best practice is to separate content (HTML), behavior (JavaScript), and presentation (CSS). Some people take this too far and try to abstract all differences among platforms with changes to behavior and presentation. For example, a web site might think it enhances usability to show only a headline to a class of physically small devices while showing the abstract of each front-page article to a class of full-size device. Separation weenies think hiding the abstract with CSS enough, but there'
Re: (Score:2)
tell me about it. My android tablet keeps getting the mobile version of sites, even when google has said that user-agents without mobile should get the full view.
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/03/mo-better-to-also-detect-mobile-user.html [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you say Steve lost? Users lost with a game that consumes 200% more CPU than it would need because the developer was too lazy to code it in the native language. I guess sometimes Good Enough is good enough.
And this crappy game is nowhere near "the number 1 paid app on the ipad" as you put it. It was the top app for 3 days in a row and it is probably already fading into oblivion.
I know you're just a troll, but I still want to set the record straight.
As for user agent sniffing, if you think that was
Which device's native language? (Score:2)
Users lost with a game that consumes 200% more CPU than it would need because the developer was too lazy to code it in the native language.
In the language of which device?
Say I'm trying to develop an application and make it available for two different devices. I already know I have to code separate front-ends for the two devices to fit into their respective user interface paradigms, but ideally the domain logic should be shared [wikipedia.org] among all platforms. For example, a game's domain logic would include its physics and NPC behaviors. This concept has been called I/O abstraction, model-view-controller, or multitier. Now say one device runs only Obj
Re: (Score:2)
Users lost with a game that consumes 200% more CPU than it would need because the developer was too lazy to code it in the native language.
In the language of which device?
I think the discussion was about the iPad. So I'd say the iPad.
Say I'm trying to develop an application and make it available for two different devices. I already know I have to code separate front-ends for the two devices to fit into their respective user interface paradigms, but ideally the domain logic should be shared [wikipedia.org] among all platforms. For example, a game's domain logic would include its physics and NPC behaviors. This concept has been called I/O abstraction, model-view-controller, or multitier. Now say one device runs only Objective-C and standard C++ (plus JavaScript in its web browser) and another runs only C#, F#, VB.NET, and other verifiably type-safe languages (plus JavaScript in its web browser). In such a case, in what language do I code the domain logic?
You basically have two choices here:
(A) You can develop everything twice. That is if you place a high value on the quality of your app for each platform. More development, higher quality because said devlopment fit the platform.
(B) You can choose some language that is abstracted on both platforms. Depending of the maturity of said language, you'll get more or less overhead. Less development, less hassle, lower quality for both platforms.
It was the top app for 3 days in a row and it is probably already fading into oblivion.
Be careful with that word, or you might end up on the business end of a lawsuit from Bethesda :p
I'm read
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of "You have two choices" (emphasis mine) didn't you get you dumbass?
Re: (Score:2)
People answering to "You have two choices" by "Why do you try to impose YOUR choice?" tend to annoy me. And no, this isn't the worst flamewar ever on slashdot, by a pretty fat margin.
Here at Slashdot, we have productive, intellectual discussions
The GP failed harder than me at that rule, since he didn't even read my post. Note that he said his eyes were hurt, hence maybe giving us a hint at why he didn't read what I wrote in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of "You have two choices" (emphasis mine) didn't you get you dumbass?
Doesn't really matter, as soon as you start commenting like that you lose all credibility and no one cares at all what you say. You are a troll setting out to start a flame war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. My Nokia C5 doesn't support HTML 5, but it does support flash.
No, it supports Flash Lite 3.0 - did the site from TFA even work on your phone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And not everything uses HTML5. Sure, not everything can use Flash either, but the notion that HTML5 makes everything universal is naive.
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the issue of content. Just because you use HTML5, it doesn't mean that all devices will magically be able to use your site. The video you are pushing still needs to be something that the clients can decode. This just avoids the "Steve won't let iPhones run Flash" problem.
Stupid Apple hating Flash Mobster. RTFA - "video"?
SlideShare, the website for sharing PowerPoint presentations and other documents, has had a major makeover.
Another perk is that the website is now 30 percent faster and its files take up 40 percent less space than they used to.
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently it's a "website for sharing PowerPoint presentations and other documents".
As to why anyone would care, I've no idea.
Re:Questions (Score:5, Informative)
1) They host slide decks from presentations. I seem them being used by a wide variety of people, including lots of tech presentations.
2) Do you care about presentations, or HTML 5? If not, you wouldn't.
3) Because lots of us nerds care about HTML 5 and technical presentations.
Re:Questions (Score:4, Informative)
And we hate flash and it's good to see these moves away from proprietary tech to open standards. The web is back.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the site still requires flash and d.oesn't use html5
Re: (Score:2)
Thnhk along the line of "This is a website, so it is best viewed with a web browser".
As I said, the web is back.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a web site using a standard that only a few browsers use and is intended to provide heavy duty applications on top of a simple web framework, so it is best viewed with a lot of luck.
Re: (Score:2)
4) Why wasn't this information included in the summary?
More interesting question... (Score:3)
What are the downsides or issues involved in building a general purpose html5 website today, for public consumption?
I'm not talking about a site which will use the canvas tag etc but something that should work fine on older browsers - how do older browsers react to doctypes developed after the browser was created?
I was looking at doing this for an upcoming project, specifically to use data annotations on tags (if you look at Facebook, they use non-standard data annotations on tags) but haven't come to a de
Re: (Score:2)
The front landing page looks excellent. The CSS hasn't loaded and the page looks like something from 1998 - excellent, have a bonus point. None of the images display either, but I'm guessing the CDN is blocked by my company's nanny software - it's no big deal, I used to block 3rd party images back in the days.
The first featured slideshow looks exactly the same as the landing page. No CSS and no images. If only all presentations could loo
Re: (Score:2)
1) SlideShare is to presentations what youtube is to videos.
2) It depends. If you don't know what Slideshare is, and don't know the difference between html5 and flash, then definitively you should not care.
3) Someone submitted it and someone else promoted it to the front page. There's a faq here: http://slashdot.org/faq [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
2 and 3.
It has HTML5.
It says iPad.
It says iPhone.
It says Android.
You don't get it. Content is being delivered via markup language!!!1! This could revolutionize the print indus.....er.... wait, what?
Re: (Score:2)
Agree; slashvertisments are showing up more and more on this site and its a real shame.
Looking at slideshare is not very encouraging- their site is covered with intrusive adverts and the comments indicate that the latest presentations don't seem to work on all browsers - with navigation buttons missing on the latest browsers.
I'm not sure that people will choose to use their service above http://prezi.com/ [prezi.com] the clear leaders in this field.
Re: (Score:3)
OK, yeah, it's a slashvertisement.
But I'm not affiliated with Slideshare, and it's handy to be notified of this news.
I've sort of put up with Slideshare because so many tech presentations (re: Drupal, PHP, and a bunch of other things) are on Slideshare.
The fact that they're HTML5 now gives me reason to explore it further.
Regarding Prezi, I don't know how it's the leader in this category. Slideshare's Alexa rank is an order of magnitude better than Prezi's, so more people are using Slideshare.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Slideshare is kind of like flickr, but for presentation files instead of single photos. Useful for sharing that kind of file without requiring an installed client software. Good for SEO and to publish the presentations nearly in the same way they were made with your favourite office suite, instead of adapting them to HTML for publishing on the www.
2) YMMV
3) there's a significant amount of content there that will no longer require adobe flash. It's therefore more likely to be made available for ever and e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, around here the site *is* used alot in IT, management and enterpreneurship-circles.
Some leading (geeky and idealistic) companies trying to push HTML5 into the web and show it's importance have hosted their presentations on the website. They are understandably "proud" they have made the implementation themselves and are now using "the latest open technology".
In that way 1) it is relevant 2) interesting as it's pro-active for HTML5 on a high-traffic s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
5) What kind of nerd thinks those were any more than rhetorical questions to make a point?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, about half of the replies to my comment alone haven't heard of it, or literally have JUST google'd it to find out. So it's not really that nerd-relevant, certainly not to have the article summary assume we all know what the hell it is.
Above that, I "know" about a lot of websites. Some of them still run HTML 1. We don't get an announcement about every one. Even for the popular ones - it doesn't mean they make front-page news no matter what they do. "Anydoc-to-PDF website moves their code to us
Slidewho? (Score:4, Funny)
Wake me up when youtube ditches Flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Wake me up when youtube ditches Flash.
Hello? Are you there? It's time to wake up. Type youtube.com on an iDevice to see it at work.
And what? (Score:2)
Have they ditched flash for their main general website? No. The only reason they don't use it for apple devices is they had no choice. Thats entirely different to making a voluntary decision to bin it completely. I don't think its me that needs to wake up to reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Youtube has had desktop HTML5 support (i.e. replaces flash) for at least a year, probably closer to two at this point. I've been using it for that period because my old N470 atom netbook (linux) struggles with full screen flash video, but runs HTML5 video acceptably in chrome. You can enable it somewhere deep inside the ever-changing youtube interface.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that relevant in a discussion about ditching Flash? Unless youtube turns OFF flash support, make HTML5 the default, or even do something as basic as market HTML5 to the general population the thing we are still embedding into other pages is very much going to remain Flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the embed code is smarter than that. It embeds the most supported player your browser has. Uninstall Flash and check it out, if you have support for WebM or H.264. If not you will want to keep Flash around - which is still the most installed standard video player on the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Again that's still backwards. How about defaulting to WebM and reverting to Flash?
Re: (Score:2)
And isn't it wonderful? It only works with certain browsers and you have to install yet another plugin for the video codec which rather defeats the point of not using flash in the first place. Thanks, but I hope they stick with flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, Youtube's video player is just about the only video player on the web that (almost) always works. The other ones do dumb things like stop loading when you pause it. (It should load up the entire video behind the scenes, and have it ready for you when you hit play.)
Re: (Score:2)
You can enable it somewhere deep inside the ever-changing youtube interface.
And then re-enable it about once every two weeks when for whatever reason it forgets your setting.
I run chromium on linux without a flash plugin, and youtube works fine in html5, but I CONSTANTLY have to re-enable it. That is a major annoyance.
Look, Google makes youtube. Google makes chrome. Can't they figure out whether the one works with the other and just use html5 by default?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the fact that HTML5 is still being developed, to drop Flash support overnight in favour of an incomplete technology is reckless at best.
People should really read up on these issues instead of parroting sermons preached by interested parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Webwhat? When I go to www.youtube.com I get flash videos.
I'm joining the parent back in bed and don't wake me for no reason again.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh what's that you had to type at the end of the www.youtube.com?
Supporting something new vs ditching something established are two very different things. When the DEFAULT is to serve up HTML5 then you can call the parent a troll.
Which bit of "ditches flash" didnt you understand? (Score:2)
They're still using it on their main site. If you have some insider information that they're going to get rid of flash fairly soon , please , fill us in!
Really? (Score:1)
SlideShare is now viewable on every kind of mobile device
As long as they support that very flavor of HTML5 which, in turn, is still a draft!
Re: (Score:2)
SlideShare is now viewable on every kind of mobile device
As long as they support that very flavor of HTML5 which, in turn, is still a draft!
It is still a draft. So? What does this mean? We shouldn't endorse it? Especially now that ALL browsers support it?
Re: (Score:2)
SlideShare is now viewable on every kind of mobile device
As long as they support that very flavor of HTML5 which, in turn, is still a draft!
It is still a draft. So? What does this mean? We shouldn't endorse it? Especially now that ALL browsers support it?
You *could* endorse it, I wouldn't say *should* because changes in the spec might make the version supported by ALL browsers OBSOLETE overnight. We're years away from a finalized standard.
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck does anyone care about the standard? What we want is a technology with a sufficiently large install base so that it has a meaning to actually use it. HTML5 is this. AND it has a standard backing it up, which is an added bonus more or less guaranteeing a common set of features & API across all browsers
If they change the standard overnight (which will never happen, you know it) my code won't stop working... so why should I care? Why should anyone care? You really think IE, Firefox, Chrome, O
Re: (Score:3)
What the fuck does anyone care about the standard?.
Pretty much stopped reading there, IE6 was developed by people who didn't give a fuck about standards and it set the web back at least half a decade. I'll leave you to figure out why they're necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, my sentence was wrong, and it should have read "What the fuck does anyone care about the draft status of the standard?"
My point was that the standard is there, it is followed by ALL browser manufacturers. The fact that it is a draft is brought up so often that it gets on my nerves. Apologies.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, you are speaking about theory. My argument is that in practice IT DOESN'T matter. The standard IS HERE, albeit in a draft form. And all major browsers have implemented said standard. It is used in the real word AS WE ARGUE. And no, none of the major browser vendors are going to remove all traces of HTML5 or CSS3 anytime soon. So, for all practical purposes, we have a standard, and we have an implementation.
In theory we have nothing. But hopefully, we don't live in theory.
Re: (Score:2)
I must have a problem expressing myself, for you are accusing me of not liking standards when I do know they are what makes the web today manageable. And I respect and love them.
Well, all major "things" in the internet, those who make it working and useful, have been brought to us with that "theoretical, academical process" you dislike. It's your right, of course.
Please cite me ONE of my sentences that can be construed to mean that I dislike that process. I bet you can't. I do like and respect that process. However I do believe that people should be allowed to use the implementations as they see fit. I don't believe everyone should be restrained from using anything that hasn't been published
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine, thanks. People are doing websites with HTML5 by the hundred of thousands, every week. All browsers support said standard. So whether the standard is draft or not, it really only matters from a rhetoric and theological standpoint. For all practical purposes, HTML5 is alive and breathing. It is doing fine.
Flipao said "changes in the spec might make the version supported by ALL browsers OBSOLETE overnight". This is pure nonsense. First, it will never happen. There would be no point. Second, a
Re: (Score:2)
Vaporware is something that doesn't exist. HTML5 can be used TODAY on 60% of the browsers out there. And moreover it is really easy to make it downgrade gracefully on the 40% remaining IE8-
Re: (Score:2)
The working group has stated that the draft is the standard and will be for ever more.
I'm still getting Flash (Score:2)
When I go to the site, I'm still getting "Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations."
Good News (Score:2)
This is good news. No need to use Flash for presenting what is basically static pages with perhaps an animation here and there. Using HTML will make it more accessible. They mention mobile devices, but this will also help search engines and people with disabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction, it might be good news, and it might be more accessible, IF they've done it right.
First cut with a new language/framework for development, and that's a big IF.
HTML5 won't magically fix things - it is perfectly possible to write accessible Flash and inaccessible "HTML5".
Case in point - I recently found that scridb (www.scribd.com) now has a new "HTML 5" interface - for which read HTML+lots of flaky javascript - replacing flash.
The new interface:
- was inaccessible and unfriendly, bro
Can't hardly wait till... (Score:2)
Sooner or later anyway...
I tried it out (Score:2)
Well, I just signed up (yay slashvertisement!) and uploaded a very simple powerpoint slide.
Result: Running chrome I still see the slide being run on Flash. I have looked around and found no immediate way of activating the HTML5 mode, even if I can see the HTML5 presentations in the slideshare frontpage just fine.
Maybe it runs on flash only if it detects a flash plugin, but why tout the HTML5 mode this way if they are going to default to flash anyway?
HMTL5? (Score:2)
Shouldn't this read, "replaced Flash with HTML Canvas"?
Re: (Score:2)
Technically everything from an a href to 80% of what was in HTML alpha is in the HTML5 spec so I guess they are "using HTML5". OMG Slashdot is using HTML5!
Considering the following (Score:2)
Then I tried IE 8. That got a dismal 69/450
Trying Google Chrome v15.0.874.51 beta-m yields a 328/450.
So if two of the three browsers are up to current version and the highest score is 328/450 then how the hell do they expect people to be able to visit HTML5 sites reliably?
Re: (Score:2)
Why? For no good reason then to annoy us I guess.
In my opinion, that's the whole point of sites like SlideShare. I mean, we can view presentations just fine without embedding them in a Flash file. And if we wanted to share them on the web, we could have used HTML like everybody else. And then they would actually work and be searchable, too.
So why do they embed the presentations in a Flash file? And why has it taken them so long to make them available as HTML? Probably exactly so that they can disable right-click and downloading - so that viewers have to k
Re: (Score:2)
Download is something that the uploader of the slides has to allow. And even then you need to be logged in to their site. FWIW, all my slide decks on slideshare are available for download.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, it's not quite that simple. That doctype tag thinger is what the HTML5 spec calls an "obsolete permitted DOCTYPE string" [w3.org] for HTML5 documents. Obviously, I object to that; I want to use, say, XHTML 1.0 and not any worse usurper "standard", and the former is not "obsolete" except by plan [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
My dis am bigger than yours (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)