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

61–70 of 80 posts

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

#61

Post by ugh »

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.

Is it? I block flash because on OS X Flash’s performance is ridiculous. I don’t care so much about auto play (the sites I visit are normally polite).

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

#62

Post by sgk284 »

The argument seems kind of silly. In 1993 when people started using images in their content, I'm sure people were making similar points. "My browser shouldn't download an image until I tell it to, it uses my bandwidth!" or "Don't download the image until I click it." And the web would be a different place if things were kept that way.

Now I'm not saying that the HTML5 video spec is perfect, but let me just provide a src and call it a day. Everything else should be out of my control.

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

#63

Post by po »

sgk284 wrote: post #62

The argument seems kind of silly. In 1993 when people started using images in their content, I'm sure people were making similar points. "My browser shouldn't download an image until I tell it to, it uses my bandwidth!" or "Don't download the image until I click it." And the web would be a different place if things were kept that way. Now I'm not saying that the HTML5 video spec is perfect, but let me just provide a…

You would change your mind in a hurry when your bandwidth bill comes in, or you run over your caps. That's basically what Gruber is saying: it's just not economically possible for people to embed video this way.

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

#64

Post by theschwa »

cpearce wrote: post #42

Unfortunately John is entirely wrong, about Firefox at least. Firefox does not buffer the entire media when autobuffer is not present. I don't know how he came to that conclusion, but just check out this page as an example: http://pearce.org.nz/video/bunny-poster.html Note that the progress bar on the controls does not turn to a lighter shade of gray until you press play - this means Firefox isn't buffering data unle…

Here's an article from Mozilla going over this http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/12/autobuffering-video-in-fire...

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

#65

Post by aw3c2 »

DarkShikari wrote: post #27
aw3c2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your constant Theora bashing is so wrong. H264 is patented, patents are bad, Theora seems the best alternative. Get over it.

When did I bash Theora? There's a lot wrong with Theora, but it's irrelevant to the discussion: what matters is what people actually use . If today it came up that there was a big patent on JPEG, would you propose that the entire web stop using JPEG tomorrow? No matter how good or bad Theora is, the internet will not simply drop the existing standard formats and switch. It doesn't work that way. This is also why brow…

I get the impression that you constantly do, but I might be wrong.

System decoders (while being a sensible idea) actually reminds me of the web before Flash when people simply embedded wmv, mov etc. Why did one stop doing that again? Because of too many incompatibilities. And that's where you would end again. A standard format is the best solution, it is a shame the W3C was not that bold.

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

#66

Post by SecurityMatters »

IgorPartola wrote: post #11
SecurityMatters wrote: post #10

The author demonstrated why Firefox, et al, made the correct choice on his example page. I visited his page using Firefox and the video would not play. My guess is that you need javascript turned on to play the videos on his site. I almost never enable javascript, and certainly would not do so just to watch a little video. It sounds like Firefox and others are trying to make the web pages more universally work.

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.

A clean browser would not address the problem. I think it is insane to browse with javascript, once you understand how it works. You are essentially letting random people run their code on your machine. How could that possibly be a good idea? I realize I miss out on a few fancy sites, but there is so much available, I just move along to the next story.

I've never used Google Calendar. I went over the code in Google Maps before I decided it was reasonably safe. That takes some time, and I have to do it every once in a while, since Google changes it. Most sites are not worth that trouble.

I don't say you are insane for blithely running javascript. You just obviously don't care much about security. That is your decision.

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

#67

Post by SecurityMatters »

fhars wrote: post #15
SecurityMatters wrote: post #10

The author demonstrated why Firefox, et al, made the correct choice on his example page. I visited his page using Firefox and the video would not play. My guess is that you need javascript turned on to play the videos on his site. I almost never enable javascript, and certainly would not do so just to watch a little video. It sounds like Firefox and others are trying to make the web pages more universally work.

Actually, your comment clearly illustrates why the choice Firefox et al. made is completely wrong. The only reason the video doesn't show in your browser is that he had been forced to use javascript hackery instead of a plain video elements to override this braindead default behavior. If they had made the correct choice, it would have worked for you, too.

I demonstrate no such thing. It may be true that a better example of an embedded video element would show why it is a bad idea. I am open to trying other examples of properly coded video elements. My point was that the author did not demonstrate his point and it could be that Firefox et al made the choice for a good reason he did not understand. I still suspect that, but there is not good evidence here either way.

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

#68

Post by fhars »

sgk284 wrote: post #62

The argument seems kind of silly. In 1993 when people started using images in their content, I'm sure people were making similar points. "My browser shouldn't download an image until I tell it to, it uses my bandwidth!" or "Don't download the image until I click it." And the web would be a different place if things were kept that way. Now I'm not saying that the HTML5 video spec is perfect, but let me just provide a…

That is why at the time all browsers had an easily accessible configuration option "don't dowload images unless requested".

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

#69

Post by ZeroGravitas »

wmf wrote: post #60
thristian wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox could pay the licensing fee for the copies of Firefox they distribute themselves, but they can't pay the licensing fee for unknown downstream users - the various Linux distros who build their own Firefox builds, projects like Seamonkey and Camino, any random people who want to use the Gecko source for something. Mozilla is pretty committed to making sure that anyone who uses Gecko has access to all the HTML f…

If Mozilla is more committed to open source ideology than making video actually work that's their choice, but they could do things differently if they wanted to.

Mozilla is a non-profit org dedicated to the open web. They can no more do things differently than a shareholder owned corporation can just decide to not make profits.

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

#70

Post by ZeroGravitas »

DarkShikari wrote: post #27
aw3c2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your constant Theora bashing is so wrong. H264 is patented, patents are bad, Theora seems the best alternative. Get over it.

When did I bash Theora? There's a lot wrong with Theora, but it's irrelevant to the discussion: what matters is what people actually use . If today it came up that there was a big patent on JPEG, would you propose that the entire web stop using JPEG tomorrow? No matter how good or bad Theora is, the internet will not simply drop the existing standard formats and switch. It doesn't work that way. This is also why brow…

It's a bit disingenuous to claim to promote choice when you're fully aware that the "choice" would be h.264 and that network effects would then render this a de-facto standard.
Post reply on HN