Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 80 posts

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#31

Post by tdm911 »

briansmith wrote: post #25

"As for why I refuse to embed Flash, let me put it this way. I use and highly recommend ClickToFlash, which blocks all Flash content by default. Why would I publish content using a technology that I personally block by default?" Soon you will be blocking and by default too, for the same reasons.

It's not the video and audio aspects of flash he is concerned about, it's the automatic loading and playing of content with flash that is annoying. Audio and video that doesn't load until you ask for it is perfectly acceptable.

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#32

Post by prodigal_erik »

youngian wrote: post #28
rimantas wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, times has changed recently. Now we have not only web sites, but the web apps too. And there different rules apply.

Yes, and the vast majority of web apps boil down to forms with some flashy bits added. I'm not saying the flashy bits aren't nice, but you should build your forms in such a way that they still work without Javascript. Like I said, Google Maps is my yardstick - anything less complicated than that should be built to work without Javascript. It might work slightly different and be a little less pretty, but there's no re…

Google Maps is of course less interactive and shiny but still works fine without js. I'm dismayed that we don't routinely expect all web developers to be similarly talented and thorough.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&output=ht...

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#33

Post by bcl »

tdm911 wrote: post #31
briansmith wrote: post #25

"As for why I refuse to embed Flash, let me put it this way. I use and highly recommend ClickToFlash, which blocks all Flash content by default. Why would I publish content using a technology that I personally block by default?" Soon you will be blocking and by default too, for the same reasons.

It's not the video and audio aspects of flash he is concerned about, it's the automatic loading and playing of content with flash that is annoying. Audio and video that doesn't load until you ask for it is perfectly acceptable.

FlashBlock handles that nicely in FF. Nothing is loaded until you click on it.

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#34

Post by dagw »

tdm911 wrote: post #31
briansmith wrote: post #25

"As for why I refuse to embed Flash, let me put it this way. I use and highly recommend ClickToFlash, which blocks all Flash content by default. Why would I publish content using a technology that I personally block by default?" Soon you will be blocking and by default too, for the same reasons.

It's not the video and audio aspects of flash he is concerned about, it's the automatic loading and playing of content with flash that is annoying. Audio and video that doesn't load until you ask for it is perfectly acceptable.

The auto play isn't a requirement for using flash. What makes you think that the people doing auto loading and playing with flash won't do it with HTML5 tags? People can write annoying crap on any platform.

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#35

Post by IgorPartola »

youngian wrote: post #22
IgorPartola wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry but that is insane. Today's web relies heavily on JavaScript. I recommend you get yourself a clean browser (maybe on a virtual machine), if you are paranoid about security (SecurityMatters huh?), and try using Google Maps, Google Calendar, et al.

Turning off Javascript is not insane. JS opens you up to a wide range of possible security problems. Also, you can think of it ideologically - websites should still work with JS turned off. Building an accessible, semantic, well-formed website means building a website that works without Javascript. The only exceptions are Google Maps or anything equally as rich. And I do mean equally as rich.

Sure. Check out http://www.bu.edu/maps. I agree that any "content" site should work, but as I use more and more web applications, I tend to rely on niceties of JavaScript more and more. Yes, it is a security concern, but keeping your browser up to date is not that hard. For the rest: AdBlock Plus solves my problems.

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#36

Post by IgorPartola »

prodigal_erik wrote: post #32
youngian wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the vast majority of web apps boil down to forms with some flashy bits added. I'm not saying the flashy bits aren't nice, but you should build your forms in such a way that they still work without Javascript. Like I said, Google Maps is my yardstick - anything less complicated than that should be built to work without Javascript. It might work slightly different and be a little less pretty, but there's no re…

Google Maps is of course less interactive and shiny but still works fine without js. I'm dismayed that we don't routinely expect all web developers to be similarly talented and thorough. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&output=ht...

Interestingly, a while ago I had an application where JavaScript was added later on in the game. The result was that we could split into two apps: a rich fast glitzy one and a basic one suitable for mobile devices.

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#37

Post by youngian »

prodigal_erik wrote: post #32
youngian wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the vast majority of web apps boil down to forms with some flashy bits added. I'm not saying the flashy bits aren't nice, but you should build your forms in such a way that they still work without Javascript. Like I said, Google Maps is my yardstick - anything less complicated than that should be built to work without Javascript. It might work slightly different and be a little less pretty, but there's no re…

Google Maps is of course less interactive and shiny but still works fine without js. I'm dismayed that we don't routinely expect all web developers to be similarly talented and thorough. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&output=ht...

Wow, color me corrected. What an impressive example to set.

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#38

Post by youngian »

IgorPartola wrote: post #36
prodigal_erik wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Maps is of course less interactive and shiny but still works fine without js. I'm dismayed that we don't routinely expect all web developers to be similarly talented and thorough. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&output=ht...

Interestingly, a while ago I had an application where JavaScript was added later on in the game. The result was that we could split into two apps: a rich fast glitzy one and a basic one suitable for mobile devices.

That's one of the best arguments for accessibility (and the associated host of issues like semantic HTML and Javascript). Sometimes things you do in the name of accessibility will bring other benefits.

I read an interesting analogy in an article (which I have since lost and so cannot give credit) about accessibility: Oxo, the kitchen tools company, started by designing tools for people with arthritis. Having designed tools with nice soft rubber grips and large handles, they discovered that non-arthritic people really liked the tools as well, and now Oxo is sold at your local Target (and they are probably raking in cash).

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#39

Post by dasil003 »

bphogan wrote: post #14
pkulak wrote: post #6

That is a problem, but it seems like it would be very easy to move the image - click for video behavior into a pretty small JS library. Writing something like this probably wouldn't be all that terrible: $(function() { $('#video_1').to_video('myvideo.mp4', 'myvideo.ogg'); }); I'd still rather do that than deal with Flash.

But see that's kinda stinky cos it's not semantic. You're not embedding the video element in the document so it can describe the content. It would be really cool if the js somehow could remove the video element or something and add it back in... but I dunno how possible that is.

The semantic part isn't even what really bothers me. I'm more concerned about requiring javascript for something that shouldn't need it.

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#40

Post by vetinari »

DarkShikari wrote: post #26
windsurfer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can Firefox distribute the H.264 codecs without infringing on patents?

How do Linux distributions distribute H.264 and AAC decoders? Debian does, Ubuntu does, Fedora does, basically everything in the world except GNUsense does--yet they do just fine with themselves. The best solution would be to simply use system decoders, like Safari does. On Windows, this would be Directshow, on Linux this would be Gstreamer, and on OS X this would be Quicktime. The browser should have ABSOLUTELY NOTH…

> Debian does, Ubuntu does, Fedora does,

They do not. For Debian and Ubuntu, it is in Multiverse (non-free) repositories. For Fedora, it in RPM Fusion repository. In other words, there is no distribution that distributes H.264 or AAC, so system decoders would not help at all.

Post reply on HN