Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scribd Switches To HTML5

Posted by timothy on from the let-a-thousand-documents-bloom dept.

drfreak writes "This story from OSNews describes Scribd, a site for uploading and reading documents, switching from Flash to HTML5. The major reason for the decision was that HTML5 supports all the major points of the site's previous functionality, so they saw no point in using Flash any more. The big improvement in the rollout is that documents are now first-class citizens of HTML and no longer need to sit in a Flash 'window.'"

177 comments

  1. Wow by OrwellianLurker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Completely blank page (scribd) until I enabled flash. I can't stand sites that have the most basic shit (plain text, etc) in flash. How is that even necessary? Good move getting off that Flash addiction.

    --
    'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
    1. Re:Wow by vtcodger · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Right on. Scribd has traditionally been a candidate for the worst designed site on the Internet managing to combine flash abuse, baffling layout, slow response, and wretched human factors in one tidy package. I started avoiding Scribd links months ago.

      The bright side. I don't see how HTML5 could possibly make it any worse.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:Wow by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 4, Funny

      How is that even necessary? Good move getting off that Flash addiction.

      stage 1) We can quit any time we want too. You just don't understand. It makes us feel ways about things. We can't sleep without it. Its only for recreation. The chicks dig it. Everyone is doing it, and there is no proof.

      stage 2) We can't take our life anymore! You have taken everything away from us! You have no right!

      stage 3) So whats with this "alternative"? Does it do the same thing for us? Without the stigma?

      stage 4) See my yard? Ya I got that pool with my own money. They tell me I was talking about myself in the plural form and stuff. I was on Flash. Ya, they have me on HTML5 now, I am feeling better, no longer have the iphone fits I used to have and my job got better. I don't crash as often on my new meds.

      stage 5) Flash was retarded.

      I am not sure why I felt the need to act that whole thing out, but your better for having read it. Congratulations.

      --Dilvish

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    3. Re:Wow by Threni · · Score: 0

      > Scribd has traditionally been a candidate for the worst designed site on the Internet

      Worse than StackOverflow? That requires Javascript, for some reason, and the screen is just littered with meaningless blobs, arrows and other images. Slashdot doesn't have any of that (well, something like 2% of it) nor does it require javascript.

    4. Re:Wow by Schoinobates+Volans · · Score: 1

      You must be mistaken: I turned JavaScript off and I could still browse StackOverflow without any trouble. Just could not vote a question or answer up or down.

    5. Re:Wow by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I don't actually find StackOverflow (or the other sites powered by their engine) to be very bad at all. The javascript is for voting/posting without refresh. I haven't noticed any "meaningless blobs/arrows/etc" on their sites either.

    6. Re:Wow by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I second that. SO design is very clean and readable, imho.

      As for Javascript, it's true they could offer a fallback for those actions, but its use is justified.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    7. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > that requires javascrip

      welcome to 1995, please leave netscape at the doorstep.

      also, you're complaining about a site that works perfectly fine without javascript - you're not making any sense.

    8. Re:Wow by raphael75 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So what if it has javascript? There's nothing wrong with it. It's the language of the Internet.

    9. Re:Wow by Threni · · Score: 1

      It keeps whining about it at the top of the page. Every page, all the time. Perhaps you're right and they are wrong.

    10. Re:Wow by virgilp · · Score: 1

      Ya, they have me on HTML5 now, I am feeling better, no longer have the iphone fits I used to have and my jobs got better.

      There - fixed that for you.

    11. Re:Wow by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Ah, but now, we don't have to worry about them fucking up material suitable for PDF format. Now, they're fucking up material suitable for HTML format, too.

    12. Re:Wow by tepples · · Score: 0

      The bright side. I don't see how HTML5 could possibly make it any worse.

      HTML5 means you see only "You are using a Microsoft web browser with 60 percent market share. Click here to install the plug-in Google Chrome Frame." on a machine where you don't have the administrator password.

    13. Re:Wow by kobaz · · Score: 1

      The thing I noticed first was that you can no longer drag the pages around in the html5 version.... they would need some more javascript. Is it just me... or is scribe showing just a bunch of jpegs as book pages? When you zoom in, you are zooming in on the original 640x480 jpeg and don't gain any benefit of getting more detail as you zoom in.

      --

      The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
    14. Re:Wow by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Depends on how they implemented it. HTML5 is designed to be possible to implement on existing browsers with JavaScript and plugins. You can use things like canvas and the video tags in IE with JavaScript shims. The video is transformed into an object tag using WMP and the JavaScript objects are map their methods to plugin calls. The canvas tag is implemented using VML. There's even an implementation of WebSocket floating around somewhere that uses Flash.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Wow by tepples · · Score: 0

      HTML5 is designed to be possible to implement on existing browsers with JavaScript and plugins.

      I know; that's what Google Chrome Frame is for: it's a plug-in for viewing HTML5 on IE 6 through 8. But unless this plug-in is Adobe Flash, you'll still run into the same problem of not having the adminstrator password to the neighbor's PC, the computer lab PC at school, the break room PC at work, or the PC in the Internet cafe.

    16. Re:Wow by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      No, Google Chrome Frame is a plugin that replaces most of IE with Chrome. This is not what I was talking about. If you read the rest of my post, you'll see that I was talking about using a combination of JavaScript and either Flash or Java. If you have Flash installed, then it can be used to provide the bits of HTML 5 that can't be implemented in IE with just JavaScript.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:Wow by idontgno · · Score: 1

      So, in this specific case, you're advocating Scribd replace Flash with HTML5, Javascript, and Flash?

      "Waitress: Well, there's Flash egg sausage and Flash, that's not got much Flash in it.
      Wife: I don't want ANY Flash!"

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    18. Re:Wow by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      wretched human factors

      Those human wretches at scribd are soo annoying. Someone should put them out of their misery.

  2. Much better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The HTML5 viewer on their site works great

    1. Re:Much better! by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      The HTML5 viewer on their site works great

      Oh really?

      Well, clicking "View in HTML mode" on their screwed up PDF pages gives:

      We're sorry, but something went wrong... ouch

      We've been notified about this issue and we'll take a look at it shortly.

      And viewing their seemingly custom-made content that works better in the HTML mode works, yes, if you ignore the zooming bug where the toolbar stays in the middle of the page sometimes. Problem is, that "custom content" was probably a perfectly readable web page with web browser scrolling etc. before they wrapped it in their jumped-up iframe.

  3. Scribd in HTML5 by noackjr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Their own introduction:
    http://www.scribd.com/documents/30964170/Scribd-in-HTML5

    1. Re:Scribd in HTML5 by digitalchinky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have noscript, when I ~allow~ (whitelist) their site, the images disappear along with most of the functionality, blank page for the most part?!. Turn off scripts and it seems to work fine. Maybe it's just my borked up firefox, but if this is the way it was intended, then I'll actually start looking at their site far more - If I see a site in flash I tend to go elsewhere. : ) Very nice change.

    2. Re:Scribd in HTML5 by mike260 · · Score: 1

      Nice!
      It renders correctly on iPhone too, selectable text and all :)

    3. Re:Scribd in HTML5 by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      LOL: "All the major ones now support @font-face and Canvas/VML. In fact, 97% of browsers (including IE!) support web fonts." How's that for a vote of confidence in IE :)

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    4. Re:Scribd in HTML5 by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      When IE starts to actually conform to a standard I usually start to worry.

    5. Re:Scribd in HTML5 by swinefc · · Score: 1

      When IE starts to actually conform to a standard I usually start to worry.

      Don't worry. IE has its own way of doing @font-face. To be fair, IE has supported font-face the longest. Just with its own file format.

    6. Re:Scribd in HTML5 by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      http://www.scribd.com/documents/30964170/Scribd-in-HTML5

      Sorry, I'm avoiding that link. Do you have a simple pdf link anywhere?

    7. Re:Scribd in HTML5 by 0racle · · Score: 1

      I love it. Scribd in HTML5 document rendered in their flash reader.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    8. Re:Scribd in HTML5 by Khuffie · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work properly in Opera 10.5. Hooray for progress!

  4. why was it flash in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was plain text and pdf files, what was wrong with regular html and pdf? I thought the flash crap was a scam to make you sign up for an account if you wanted to download the document instead of just view it youtube-style.

    1. Re:why was it flash in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Near as I can tell, they thought keeping fonts the same as an original doc was important, and browsers didn't used to be able to handle downloading fonts.

    2. Re:why was it flash in the first place? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Near as I can tell, they thought keeping fonts the same as an original doc was important, and browsers didn't used to be able to handle downloading fonts.

      So they could have had a non-Flash site with links to pdf versions of the documents for people who were that bothered about fonts.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:why was it flash in the first place? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      what was wrong with regular html and pdf?

      There's no lock-in with those formats, silly.

  5. So What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Ok, great.

    This is a story targeted at the hardcore Apple Hipster Douchebags out there who are lapping up Jobs talking points about Adobe and his war to keep developers locked into Apple products.

    What the hell does some random site changing browser tech have to do with the rest of the 97 percent of the computing world that doesn't give a damn about Apple and their products?

    1. Re:So What? by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What the hell does some random site changing browser tech have to do with the rest of the 97 percent of the computing world that doesn't give a damn about Apple and their products?

      Just because we don't care about Apple, that doesn't mean that we want Flash; I'll celebrate the day I can finally uninstall that bloated swamp of security holes from all my PCs.

    2. Re:So What? by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      That's right. This story which doesn't mention Apple, which benefits users of basically all modern browsers, which isn't bad for anyone except maybe Adobe---except that Adobe is also building HTML5 tools that they'll do just fine selling--is clearly just targeted to hardcore hipster apple d-bags.

      I'm pretty sure that an equal number don't give a damn about Adobe and their products. As far as this site goes, trashing Flash, nothing of value was lost.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    3. Re:So What? by Antity-H · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't worry, by the time you are able to do that, they will have implemented twice as much security holes directly in the browser. it might be slightly less bloated (more likely : much more bloated) and some of the holes will be advertised as "features" but they will be there nonetheless.

    4. Re:So What? by Swampash · · Score: 1

      This is a story targeted at the hardcore Apple Hipster Douchebags

      No, it's a story targeted at people with smartphones. A big market segment that can't use Flash.

    5. Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone with a smartphone. The N900 supports flash.

    6. Re:So What? by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, a big market segment could care less about flash. I use flashblock in Firefox for a reason.

    7. Re:So What? by mike260 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good thing there's competition in the browser space then, innit?

    8. Re:So What? by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its a poignant piece because of the ipad and Apples refusal to allow Flash. Its timely because it signals the death of Flash, and appropriate because HTML5 is really here, not vapor, and major sites are moving to HTML5.

      I am not an Adobe hater by any means, I wish them well. I have no love of Flash, its always been too buggy and too bloated to match its usefulness. I am fairly certain you do not have to like Apple or be a fanboy to recognize this. You just have to be realistic. Flash has always been crap.

      And since you love Flash everything you say will be crap too.

      --Dilvish

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    9. Re:So What? by LinuxAndLube · · Score: 1

      You must be using some super-secret browser from the future that supports all of HTML5.

    10. Re:So What? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. 5 years from now, any major browser that has errors in dealing with elements of html5 will have those errors rolled into the standard according to the WHATWG design philosophy of "if you can't fix it, call it a feature".

    11. Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to wonder how many browser writers will have the resources to be able to implement the incredibly complicated specifications of HTML 5. That may kill off the competition.

    12. Re:So What? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Sure, but those would be standard-based security holes, so there's no problem.

    13. Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmbZkqORX4
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sKpsZfrUeY

      Bloated and buggy?

      I prefer open standards, but Flash has provided a solution for the past 10-15 years while browsers are still playing catchup. I have a 5-6 year old dual processor rig that plays Flash animations smoothly (20-30fps+), and for me, has never crashed on me. It does have trouble with HD video, but I can live without HD... Honestly speaking tho, normal video viewing should be done by the browser anyway with open and *FREE* codecs to make and show (you know, the way it was done before with media player plugins before Flash removed the need to install codecs).

      I really hope Flash doesn't die until the browsers can actually replace it's functionality. There's no way any current browsers can support a full 3d or even reasonably hefty 2d.

      http://www.optimum7.com/css3-man/animation.html

      This doesn't run in Firefox 3,6,3, Internet Explorer 8, at least not on this rig. The "Only runs in IE" syndrome is happening again...

      So ya, HTML5 isn't quite ready yet.

    14. Re:So What? by yawn9 · · Score: 1

      Except that WebKit is becoming a pretty pervasive core for browsers. So much so that it's now the 'in' thing to do to bash browsers that don't run it..

    15. Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just played it in Chrome on a recent high-end quad-core. It's got a long way to go to beat Flash. Looks very contrived from a programming point of view and is full of artifacts (blurry zoom-ins).

    16. Re:So What? by TheTrueScotsman · · Score: 1

      That's why you should fear HTML5. If Flash dies, those adverts will become trickier to block. Sure Noscript may do it if the script host is different, but they'll work around that.

    17. Re:So What? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      It's not about apple, its about the slow death of a boated over used insecure format.

      Each 'random site' as you call it, is another nail in the coffin and i look forward to a return to a less "client hungry" net.

      Oh wait, you are a troll.. nevermind.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    18. Re:So What? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      There is still Gecko. But now, WebKit is only becaming pervasive because it works well, there is nothing stopping competition or forking.

      --
      Rethinking email
    19. Re:So What? by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      I didn't consider Apple into the story for even a moment.

      This is about a major site switching to a better platform - one that works properly on all kinds of devices and *gasp!* even makes it easier to search and index on the net!

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  6. Issuu should also do this.. by mozumder · · Score: 1

    They have a great viewer as well.

  7. HTML5 by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: -1, Troll

    Can we quit calling everything that uses HTML5 video "HTML5"? The HTML5 standard contains a lot more than just a new video element (although, I suppose, intentionally cutting down on the number of plugins you need for modern browsing is a significant feature).

    Slashdot could "switch to HTML5," and it wouldn't mean anything about their videos (they have videos?). Also, Scribd could have switched to HTML5...and still use Flash.

    Picky, I know, but I think it's important to realize the whole standard isn't about video.

    --
    R.Mo
    1. Re:HTML5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You do realize that Scribd HTML5 has nothing to do with video, right? The main features they were looking for are proper (better) layout and web fonts.

    2. Re:HTML5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Scribd isn't a video site, so I'm not sure why you keep talking about the HTML5 video tag. Yes, it's becoming increasingly more common for people to think HTML5 == <video>, but that's not what this summary is about. I do agree with you though.

  8. uhh? weird by pavera · · Score: 1

    So, I'm using the latest chrome, and the latest firefox, and the latest safari... and if I disable flash and attempt to go to any of the "html5" documents... I get "You need to upgrade to the latest flash player to access this content".... If I leave flash enabled, I get the same old clunky flash document viewer... so uh what gives?

    1. Re:uhh? weird by pavera · · Score: 1

      The best is when they tell you to do all this neat stuff in their "welcome to html5" presentation... and then none of it works, cause its still in flash...

    2. Re:uhh? weird by Dr+Herbert+West · · Score: 1

      Luckily, whenever something that is posted on /. with the tagline "look ma-- no flash" we don't have to RFTA to know that the implementation is most likely broken.

    3. Re:uhh? weird by Entropy2016 · · Score: 2, Informative

      In my Safari and Chrome it works perfectly fine. Are you sure you're not doing something wrong?

    4. Re:uhh? weird by virgilp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Check http://www.scribd.com/documents/30964170/Scribd-in-HTML5, it has a blue box to the right, with the title "Reading just got better", where you can switch to HTML5 mode
      (I'd really say "HTML mode" since it works in IE too.... the whole HTML5 vs Flash argument for Scribd is just flamebait/publicity stunt).

    5. Re:uhh? weird by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 2, Funny

      Very unlike when they say "Look Dad -- Flash!" and its always broken.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    6. Re:uhh? weird by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Tried from IE 8 (freshly installed yesterday) and was asked to get flash. It appears they're still transitioning their site and haven't sanitized their links going to the "bad" format.

      It seems going straight to www.scribd.com and clicking on the "titular" document there failed.I couldn't find any direct link from TFA, so I can't see where other posters got the working link.

      Working link is http://www.scribd.com/documents/30964170/Scribd-in-HTML5
      Broken link from scribe's site is http://www.scribd.com/doc/30964170/Scribd-in-HTML5

  9. So where's the HTML5? by Sowelu · · Score: 1

    I clicked on one of the supposedly HTML5 books, but it's still in flash. I right click on it, and it says "About Adobe Flash Player" at the bottom of the context menu.

    1. Re:So where's the HTML5? by punit_r · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do one of the following:

      1. Click on the "See this document in HTML mode" link to the right
      OR
      2. Replace "doc" in the address bar with "documents"

  10. it begins.. by studionone · · Score: 1

    Thank you, this had absolutely made my day. Die Flash, die...

  11. Scribd adds what value, exactly? by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Scribd is more of a pain than a useful tool. It's basically an online PDF viewer, one which makes content non-downloadable. It takes away functionality; you can't select and cut text. So it's really more a form of DRM than anything else.

    You can get most of the same effect by rendering your document to PDF with the page size set to "trade paperback".

    1. Re:Scribd adds what value, exactly? by virgilp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Furthermore, I find their "major reason" that HTML5 supports all the major points of the site's previous functionality to be a blatant lie. To give one example - ok, HTML5 supports webfonts... but how exactly are you going to license the fonts from Adobe (or any other font foundry that doesn't give away the font for free)?

      Don't get me wrong: the ability to select, search (*) and so on is great, and could be a very good reason per se to switch. But I don't think that the solution is to flame things up.... just go the Google way, they added HTML5 video on youtube (where possible(!) ) and didn't make so much fuss about scrapping a plugin that enabled them to have a business in the first place.

      I'm pretty sure that this is going to backfire for scribd in the future, as they have set some not-so-realistic expectations with their messaging, in the hopes of getting lots of publicity. This whole HTML5 craze reminds me of the similar period when XML was fashionable and thought (by some) that it will replace SQL databases, and would become the universal-good-for-all-storage-format. Guess what, Oracle is still around :)

      (*) Search doesn't really work in my experience... check http://www.scribd.com/documents/30964170/Scribd-in-HTML5. If you select text in a box you can then search (& find stuff in that box), but not in all boxes; for instance, try searching "me three".

    2. Re:Scribd adds what value, exactly? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      That's for people who don't know how to install a decent pdf viewer.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:Scribd adds what value, exactly? by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, I find their "major reason" that HTML5 supports all the major points of the site's previous functionality to be a blatant lie. To give one example - ok, HTML5 supports webfonts... but how exactly are you going to license the fonts from Adobe (or any other font foundry that doesn't give away the font for free)?

      That's a big point I hadn't thought of.. are they planning to pirate all of the fonts? Surely their spammy business model doesn't afford them the margins to properly license all of the typefaces. Further, how will they accurately preserve layouts or typesetting? This is something the PDF format does extraordinarily well, it's unfortunate that all of the browser plugins are terrible (at least on Windows, which represents ~90% of their user base.) I admittedly have spent little to no time working with the format on a low level, but at a glance I don't see why PDF can't be rendered in-browser the same way we finally got SVG support..

    4. Re:Scribd adds what value, exactly? by cgomezr · · Score: 1

      I agree. I just don't see that site's point. It comes up sometimes when I'm searching for some quick fact, it takes ages to load and when it does, it shows me a PDF where I can't perform basic functions like select text and copy, and other functions are extremely slow. So why don't they give me a damn link to the PDFs and that's it? It would be way more useful.

    5. Re:Scribd adds what value, exactly? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heck, compared to Acrobat Reader, implementing the PDF spec in Javascript and decomposing the PDF into some combination of CSS-styled text, SVG, and canvas might even be faster...

      Against pretty much any other PDF reader, though, it would probably be strictly a stunt.

    6. Re:Scribd adds what value, exactly? by visualight · · Score: 1

      I hate scribd more than I hate experts-exchange. Wish there as an easy way to make google remember my minuses.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    7. Re:Scribd adds what value, exactly? by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      Wish there as an easy way to make google remember my minuses.

      a plugin for firefox does that: OptimizeGoogle

      (it was forked from the older CustomizeGoogle plugin because CG hadn't been updated for a few years)

      i currently have scribd.com, swik.net, and experts-exchange.com in my filter list. IMO they're all worthless crap that turns up in google search results and make it HARDER for me to find what i'm looking for....they're noise drowning out the signal. AKA spam.

  12. "We" just did that. by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can we quit calling everything that uses HTML5 video "HTML5"?

    I'd be happy to but... what the hell are you talking about"

    Scribd is all documents, all the time. As in things you read?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:"We" just did that. by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Scribd is all documents, all the time. As in things you read?

      Their HTML5 section isn't. When I use that, I just get a bunch of empty frames that I suppose are meant to be pages full of text.

    2. Re:"We" just did that. by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      I clicked on this scribd thing, and I copied some fancy text to a text editor, but I did not get the sounds. You know, the "woosh" sounds I normally get. Is my HTML5 broken? Can I get it replaced? I suppose thats better than what you have, no text and all. Maybe you could could replace your brain? Or your browser?

      Thanks for your help.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    3. Re:"We" just did that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woosh

    4. Re:"We" just did that. by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      I noticed I had too much time and hard drive space, so I filmed every page of War and Peace in high def while slowly panning the camera from top to bottom.

      I then read the book in a video player.

      Doesn't everyone do this?

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    5. Re:"We" just did that. by visualight · · Score: 1

      Well, near as I can tell the purpose of scribd's existence is to derail your effort to get a question answered, so I don't think it matters.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    6. Re:"We" just did that. by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      You should probably switch away from IE6.

      I'm kidding, I'm kidding! =P

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  13. Still hoping they fail completely by EdIII · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's nice and all that they are seemingly committed to creating the greatest HTML5 development tools out there, but I just can't bring myself to trust that company.

    They have notoriously defended their IP with some really dirty behavior and security through obscurity is never a good idea.

    Adobe's idea of document security for the longest time was basically a text warning in the header that said, "Watch out are we will use our friends in the FBI to arrest you and hold you indefinitely".

    They may have some pretty neat products, but that corporate culture just needs to die and go away. Please.

  14. Better for Android too. by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a story targeted at the hardcore Apple Hipster Douchebags

    I wasn't aware Android users were "Apple Hipster Douchebags".

    Because after all, this means all Android users will be able to use Scribd now. Not just the select few with the very latest devices WHEN Flash support arrives on Android.

    After all, these are DOCUMENTS we are talking about. Why should they not be easily readable on any mobile device, not just those few that support Flash (which currently is none).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Better for Android too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      There are current handsets that support flash right now. My desire supports flash, my 3-4 year old HTC TyTN supports flash.

      What's coming for Android that I think your referring to is just the new build of flash which Adobe are hyping.

  15. Not Really HTML5... by Torrance · · Score: 5, Informative

    So far as I can tell this is mostly just html4.1 plus some web-fonts thrown in (which is properly css3), and a bunch of mostly browser-specific css. Not really html5. They mention canvas in their introduction, but I haven't come across an example.

    Certainly looks better than the flash, but take a look at the source code and it'll make your eyes bleed. So much for semantic code - there are spans and divs up the wazoo.

    1. Re:Not Really HTML5... by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      I'll settle for unruly code if it deprecates and banishes flash... hands down

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    2. Re:Not Really HTML5... by acidrainx · · Score: 1

      When you're converting PowerPoint to HTML, it's not exactly trivial to generate semantic code.

    3. Re:Not Really HTML5... by michaelhood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll settle for unruly code if it deprecates and banishes flash... hands down

      So it's just a holy war for you, rather than the actual best tool or solution for the job?

      That sort of spaghetti markup leads to huge pages, increased CPU load (browsers trying to render and mark up all the tags and mangled CSS), and other ill effects. It's not quite a black & white, "HTML IS BETTER THAN FLASH!" like you want it to be.

    4. Re:Not Really HTML5... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Sounds a bit like something is wrong with the PowerPoint interface, aside from the general bloat and usability issues.
      It's seems similar the same problem Adobe are currently having with Flash. Adobe needs to come up with an excellent HTML5 authoring tool and put Flash on the back-burner as a vector animation and on-line games platform, perhaps.

    5. Re:Not Really HTML5... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      this is mostly just html4.1

      I hear they took the HTML 4.1 specifications, ripped it off in it's entirety, made some small tweaks, and are calling it "HTML5". Shocking I know.

      In all seriousness, "HTML5" really means "doing stuff with html/css/scripting that wasn't possible in old web browsers". Scribed is using javascript to control the position of certain elements on the page, which was too slow until recently, and using the new canvas feature to do vector artwork, and using custom fonts — that's been around for a long time, but wasn't broadly supported.

      There's plenty of things going on on that page which were either difficult or impossible with HTML/CSS/JavaScript just a few years ago.

    6. Re:Not Really HTML5... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is if you're not on a PC, specifically a Windows PC.

    7. Re:Not Really HTML5... by PerfectionLost · · Score: 1

      Switch the reading mode to book mode to use see some HTML5 action with page transitions.

    8. Re:Not Really HTML5... by tepples · · Score: 1

      When you're converting PowerPoint to HTML, it's not exactly trivial to generate semantic code.

      How not? A slide with only a headline is an <h2>, the headline at the top of each slide is an <h3>, other headlines are <h4> elements, free text under the headlines is <p>, and lists are <ul> or <ol>.

  16. Wow. by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You mean an open standard won out over a proprietary implementation?

    Flash is about to be marginalized. It will happen quickly, in much the same way as the open HTML/DOM/Javascript beat out over 20 years of Microsoft "innovations" such as VB and .NOT. And in much the same way as Android is about the slaughter the iPhone.

    See, open standards usually follow proprietary "trail blazers". Once the standard has been defined, copy-cats move in and do the same things, cheaper.

    Apple originally won the desktop computer war, then lost it to the more open (and less expensive) Microsoft, which finally is losing it's lead to the even more open (and inexpensive) web/SOAP API. Apple got it right again with the iPhone, but is already losing it again with the highly proprietary iPhone now rapidly losing market share rapidly against the more open Linux/Google/Android platform. (Android's 4x marketshare growth in a single month - WTF!?!)

    As a note, I have an HTC WinMo phone right now, but my next phone will almost assuredly be... Android!

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Wow. by bennomatic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's right! That's why OpenOffice.org totally beats out the Microsoft suite.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    2. Re:Wow. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      And why countless free source control tools beat ClearCase. We could go on like this all week.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    3. Re:Wow. by oztiks · · Score: 1

      I would like to believe that, really i would, but history has shown us that better isnt always the best selling concept.

      My attempts at using HTML5 on my iPhone have been clunky at best, I remember this game called PieMan, a rip from the PacMan we all love. The issue was the caching, i simply found it too slow, its navigation on the touch screen was temperamental and it would pick the worst times to hang on me and as a result i gave up on it all togeather in about 15 mins, granted it could of been bad programming HTML5 but for me it goes to show how experimental it is.

      I think with maturity it could possibly fade flash out but then again there are far to many industry experienced developers out there making money of being a flash developer, it those you have to convince to use HTML5.

      If someone was to build a good canvas app like Adobe Flash CS for HTML5, introduce it for free and have an easy to use API which can easily be implemented, then we would see the shake up we've all been waiting for.

    4. Re:Wow. by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      You mean an open standard won out over a proprietary implementation?

      Flash is about to be marginalized. It will happen quickly, in much the same way as the open HTML/DOM/Javascript beat out over 20 years of Microsoft "innovations" such as VB and .NOT.

      Huh? This is akin to saying Coca Cola beat out Honda..

    5. Re:Wow. by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      .NOT?

      Am I to believe that's a rip on the .net framework? If so, I'm curious to hear your arguments on the subject. The .net framework isn't something to make light of.

    6. Re:Wow. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And in much the same way as Android is about the slaughter the iPhone.

      Sadly, I doubt that. For non-geeks the iPhone is the one to have.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Wow. by moongha · · Score: 1

      Let's take that Android growth rate.

      Now factor in that it's almost exclusively among people who have contracts with carriers that don't offer iPhones.
      Now factor in that it's for the US only.
      Now factor in that it's doesn't mention that Apple sells other devices (iPods, iPads) that are part of the same 'ecosystem' as the iPhone.

      I think you're declaring this competition over a little prematurely.

    8. Re:Wow. by abhi_beckert · · Score: 1

      Your examples are good ones, but there are plenty of other examples of proprietary software succeeding where open ones are failed. One of my own small open source projects was swallowed by a proprietary competitor for example.

      Just because flash is dying the way VB did, doesn't mean android or linux will take over. iPhone OS and Windows are more entrenched than flash ever was, and they are both under active development by skilled programmers, unlike flash.

    9. Re:Wow. by tk77 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apple got it right again with the iPhone, but is already losing it again with the highly proprietary iPhone now rapidly losing market share rapidly against the more open Linux/Google/Android platform. (Android's 4x marketshare growth in a single month - WTF!?!)

      I would say, and I believe many would agree, that the normal "user" doesn't care about or even understand what "open" really means. In fact, from reading many comments on various sites I would say that many "geeks" don't even understand what open means or how its applied to the various phones. Regardless, Apple has a single phone (granted with 3 revisions thus far), on a single US network. Android is available on multiple networks and more importantly, Verizon. I know many people that would love to get an iPhone but refuse to simply because they can't have it on Verizon. They complain that they won't be able to use mobile-to-mobile minutes talking to their friends and wont get unlimited sms/mms to their friends. Not one person I know has ever mentioned that they don't want an iPhone because its not "open".

      Android phones are a great alternative to the iPhone on other networks so people will buy it. But to say that Apple is "losing" because they aren't open, I can't see how that can be completely proven as Apple recently announced they surpassed 1 million sold iPads (which run the same "closed" operating system).

      As others have pointed out, you also have to count the iPads and iPod Touches as they all share the same OS and allow non-at&t users to have the "iPhone" experience without having to switch to at&t (or get non-contracted service on their iPad 3G's)

    10. Re:Wow. by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "Now factor in that it's almost exclusively among people who have contracts with carriers that don't offer iPhones."

      Or to put it another way, in the US only AT&T offers iPhones. How did an iPhone limitation become a feature?

    11. Re:Wow. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the fact that Android is on all of the major carriers while Apple isn't, is part of the open vs. closed equation. So, you explained why a lot of people are choosing open instead of closed.

      You are right that most people don't know or care about open vs. closed. That doesn't mean that they don't make decisions based on it. Your example of availability is a perfect one.

      So, whether Android or iPhone takes the market will be due to many factors, and one of them will be open vs. closed. Even if no one says it out loud. (Of course not only will some people say it out loud, they will incorrectly claim that it is the end all be all deciding factor.)

    12. Re:Wow. by moongha · · Score: 1

      I wasn't listing 'features'. I was listing reasons the published growth rates might not necessarily be indicative of future performance.

      In other words, Apple could end the exclusivity deal and immediately sell a bunch of iPhones to non AT&T users.

    13. Re:Wow. by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      I don't share your belief that there are lots of iPhone fans who are being held back because they don't want AT&T. Besides, the other carriers might fear the possibility that Apple could end up with a monopoly on smart phones.

    14. Re:Wow. by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      The .net framework isn't something to make light of.

      yeah, it's way too bloated and heavy for that.

    15. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although the web client side of .Net (ie Silverlight) is indeed little used, .Net is far from being beaten, wether in web servers, application servers, windows applications and games and not only on windows (see Mono project).
      I dont see how the SOAP api (which FYI was designed by IBM and Microsoft) competes with desktop OSes like Windows.

      Use at least Wikipedia before dropping technologies names randomly.

  17. HTML5 may be the wave of the future, but.. by Qubit · · Score: 4, Funny

    Heh. If you get to the end of the high quality introduction, you're presented with a link to the people that drew all of the images:

    http://www.specialagentproductions.com/

    Yeah, their site doesn't work unless you enable Flash. Pretty funny after the whole "get rid of proprietary formats" and "free your documents online" thing...

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
    1. Re:HTML5 may be the wave of the future, but.. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      The cobbler's children have no shoes.

    2. Re:HTML5 may be the wave of the future, but.. by Eil · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to bet the companies that Microsoft contracts to do its marketing don't do their video editing on Windows...

  18. Go Fuck Yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    You fucking piece of shit.

    Go back to suck Jobs' cock you fucking loser.

  19. My CPU fan is controlled by PWM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    ... and every time I scroll in HTML5 Scribd,

    wwwwWWWHHOOOOOSSSHHHHhhh

    Stop scrolling? ...silence. Start scrolling again?

    wwwwWWWHHOOOOOSSSHHHHhhh

    1. Re:My CPU fan is controlled by PWM... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, what browser? With Chrome on Linux, my CPU didn't spin up past 800 mhz.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    2. Re:My CPU fan is controlled by PWM... by Inf0phreak · · Score: 1

      Same here---sort of. Old desktop 2.4GHz P4 and scrolling causes 100% CPU usage in Firefox 3.6 which is supposed to have a decent Javascript implementation, but apparently not. I would test with Chrome, but the installer always fails on this machine with a completely useless error message. Don't know why.

      --
      ________
      Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
    3. Re:My CPU fan is controlled by PWM... by michaelhood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Same here---sort of. Old desktop 2.4GHz P4 and scrolling causes 100% CPU usage in Firefox 3.6 which is supposed to have a decent Javascript implementation, but apparently not. I would test with Chrome, but the installer always fails on this machine with a completely useless error message. Don't know why.

      That's because it's not necessarily a JavaScript issue, it's a omg-that's-a-lot-of-bad-markup (HTML and CSS) issue. And FireFox is getting more and more bloated with every release. I suspect your browser does similar on giant Slashdot threads, too?

    4. Re:My CPU fan is controlled by PWM... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Yes, me too. Don't know what's going on with it.

    5. Re:My CPU fan is controlled by PWM... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      2.8 GHz Dual Core Athlon here and the scrolling is slow and knocks both cores to 100%. It's fine in Chrome though

  20. web fonts, really? by dragisha · · Score: 1

    Then why almost all text in their HTML5 introductory comic was overflowing those baloons? Isn't it supposed to be WYSIWYG thing?

    --
    http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
    1. Re:web fonts, really? by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      I assume you have some sort of zoom going on in your browser/OS (or WM?)

    2. Re:web fonts, really? by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      See also: http://www.zazzle.com/css_is_awesome_mug-168716435071981928

  21. Already Dead by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Flash is like a zombie. Even though may be walking, it's already dead. It just doesn't know it. Yet.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
    1. Re:Already Dead by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Flash is like a zombie. Even though may be walking, it's already dead. It just doesn't know it. Yet.

      And if you don't keep installing security patches it will eat your brain...

    2. Re:Already Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you install security updates, it will also install McAfee and that will eat your brain. So your brain is eaten anyway.

  22. You have to enable it. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Go to scribd.com, notice the Google Ad, click "try it now". Or, on most of their featured pages, you should be able to click "view with HTML" on the right side.

    So, it's something they're trying out. It's not actually the default yet.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:You have to enable it. by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      It also appears to only be for certain documents.

    2. Re:You have to enable it. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Right, as TFA says -- they intend to convert their entire collection eventually, but they're not there yet.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  23. That's why they're doing HTML5. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can select and copy text. I'm sure you can find a way to spider the pure HTML pages. Even if you can't, Scribd has always allowed you to download the original PDF.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:That's why they're doing HTML5. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But what is the point of Scribd? (Hint: There is absolutely none.)
      Just replace every link to Scribd with the link to the PDF, and you’re good.
      Oh, wait, that’s actually easy to do with Greasemonkey. Except that Scribd still requires you to log in, and get a session id to download it. So it’s still pointless DRM / obfuscation.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:That's why they're doing HTML5. by mTor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if you can't, Scribd has always allowed you to download the original PDF.

      Not true at all. Person who uploads PDF can prevent download of files. A person who upload can even prevent you from copying text out of files!

      I personally dislike Scribd simply because they host a ton of other people's content. I found 4 of my PDFs there ( 3 presentations, one ebook) and the people who uploaded them were making money off it and so was Scribd (ads).

    3. Re:That's why they're doing HTML5. by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Yeah, inquiring mind want to know.

      I have wondered from the first time I went to Scribd, what is the point of it?

      The *only* point I could see of Scribd technology is if it was part of a platform similar to Google docs.

      I would be very glad if someone here could explain us the use cases of Scribd. Please?

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    4. Re:That's why they're doing HTML5. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what is the point of Scribd? (Hint: There is absolutely none.)

      It makes it possible to deeplink into pdf's?

    5. Re:That's why they're doing HTML5. by abhi_beckert · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you hate google as well? They also give you access to stuff other people made public, often illegally.

      Hell, we should shut down the whole internet.

    6. Re:That's why they're doing HTML5. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK PDF allows you to print the document, even if it's protected on download.
      For these case, just print them to a PDF file.
      On windows people can use pdfcreator and they are all set.

    7. Re:That's why they're doing HTML5. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Content (that I was hosting) was taken off my site, and re-published on Scribd.

      I had a permissive license that allowed it, but what is the point? The point was to generate revenue for someone else using my content.

      I don't host ads on my site, and the content is free to take - but now the Scribd version gets better ranking in the SERPs so my users (who come via search) all end up on somebody else's revenue generating site.

      If you are someone who generates content, Scribd (and it's users) appear entirely different than if you are just a consumer.

      About.com strikes me as about the same.

    8. Re:That's why they're doing HTML5. by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      Two nights ago I wanted to check out the catalogue for a bike company. Their "low resolution" PDF was 157 MB, their hi-res was almost 250 MB. Never mind downloading on a mobile device, even on my desktop I had no desire to download something that big just to view a half dozen pages within, and their "interactive" Flash version was crap.

      If they had used Scribd and their new HTML mode, I would've been able to load the front cover, go to the table of contents, jump to just the pages I wanted to see, and probably downloading less than 1 MB by the time I was finished.

    9. Re:That's why they're doing HTML5. by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      Adobe Reader has had byte-range HTTP since ever. It would also have just downloaded the first page and then downloaded the rest on demand.

  24. The Insensitive clods! by stimpleton · · Score: 2, Informative

    From TFA: "Every mobile phone, e-reader,computer, tablet, and pocket watch can display HTML....ok, maybe not the pocket watch!"

    And maybe not the mobile phone either. WAP 1.0 phones are still about.

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
  25. My God Are You An Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Get the fuck off this site. Just do it.

    1. Re:My God Are You An Idiot by EdIII · · Score: 2, Informative

      An idiot really? None of what I said is untrue, and it is not trolling.

      Why don't you look into the story of Dmitry Sklyarov? What you will find is a company, Adobe, that not only pushed security through obscurity, but brought great shame to the US by conspiring with the FBI to horribly abuse the man.

      And over what? Pointing out that Adobe Document security was a farce?

      This has nothing to do with open-source, closed-source, flash-sucks, flash-rules, proprietary-platforms, whatever. What it has always been about is Adobe's behaviors defending and promoting it's business and that it has not always been in their own customers best interests.

      You can claim that is trolling and hate me for it, but Adobe is a horrible company, with pretty decent development products. It does not matter to me if they really do make the best HTML5 tools in the world. They are still Adobe, and Adobe at the end of the day, has demonstrated just how dirty and nasty they are willing get......

      I feel the same way about Sony. Once a rootkit malware installer, always a rootkit malware installer.

      It's like an aged pedophile out of prison after 20 years. Sure, he may seem like a nice guy now, and tries so hard to (seemingly) do the right thing and smile, but you would be foolish to forget he fucked some little boy in the ass .

      That's all I ever point out about Adobe and Sony. No, they don't deserve a second chance.

    2. Re:My God Are You An Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's not the point. The point is what you're saying makes no fucking sense. Did you read the summary? Who are you hoping fails? Scribd? Obviously not, they don't make HTML5 development tools. Adobe? Nobody's talking about Adobe or their Document security here, because this artice is about Scribd!

      Lay off with the random tangents.

  26. Can not search in document by DollyTheSheep · · Score: 1

    I cannot search for text with the Firefox' find dialog. But they say, that their documents are now fully part of the HTML infrastructure, so they should be searchable, no? Try their self-introduction for HTML 5 and see, whether you can search for "Highlight me!", which is in the middle of the document.

    Or I'm doing something wrong here?

    1. Re:Can not search in document by imakemusic · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're not wrong. Also their built-in search function just says "search coming soon".

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    2. Re:Can not search in document by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, with FF 3.0.18 i can correctly search in the document...

      But i can't switch pages, only loads the first one. Pushing the 'next page' button or scrolling or whatever doesn't do anything.

      Looking through the (ugly as hell) html source shows me that, in cleartext, only the Headline of the first 'page' was loaded... not even the 'If you’re reading this, you’re using Scribd in HTML5. ' is found. Oh and i found these html comments:
      <!-- Served by app02 in 0.199 secs. cpu: 0.170 -->
      <!-- Served by app10 in 0.414 secs. cpu: 0.350 -->
      Seriously? for one simple page like this so much cpu time?

    3. Re:Can not search in document by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      You're right, I couldn't select the "highlight me" text! All the other text was fine, though.

      I wonder if this is a bug in the browsers (unlikely, I use Chrome, not Firefox!), or a bug on Scribd's site. My guess is the latter.

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  27. Socialcubix by socialcubix · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Apple is forcing out flash and encouraging developers to use the HTML 5 and CSS3 for web content. Is this a win for HTML5. Adobe is not pleased with the banning of the Flash to iphone compiler, but that 's not doing to stop them from deveoping ad improving Flash. Since Flash can still do amazing effects that no amount of HTML 5 or Java script can come close to at that speed , Flash have still a huge market. Here are some pros and cons of HTML and Flash Flash Pros Flash players allow for uniformity to all browser. More effects than HTML5 and Javascript. Vector based for easy scaling. Flash Cons Search engines don't read Flash well. SWFs can be take and large while to download. External plugin has to be downloaded to view Flash. HTML5 Pros Very fast with CSS. Canvas and Video. Geolaction API. HTML5 Cons Not ully supported to all browsers. Limited effects and animation. Slower animation than Flash. Should I use Flash?

    1. Re:Socialcubix by michaelhood · · Score: 2, Informative

      You could have just linked to http://ezinearticles.com/?Flash-Vs-HTML5&id=4175699 where you borrowed that from, since your text formatting is on-par with Scribd's..

  28. Hello, mods? by wall0159 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why on Earth has this been moderated "troll"? I don't agree with everything in the post, but there's sure-as-hell no trolling here!

    1. Re:Hello, mods? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Didn’t you know? The trolls now have mod points too! And they mod everything down that they don’t like. No matter if it’s actually true, insightful, informative or anything. The behavior can be compared to religious fundamentalist in rage over you calling out their bullshit.

      I very often post comments that are true but that many people would like to censor, and I got a weird rise in comments being modded Troll or Flamebait for no reason at all. I call those people trollerators. And I fear Slashdot is going down the drains because of them. :/
      (Ok, anyone with a four-digit id might tell me, that it already did a loong time ago. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:Hello, mods? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because his history is entirely made up. Looks like he started following computers a week ago and then just assumed the last 20 years look just like last week, and somehow it all magically goes back to his... choice of cell phone? WTF?

      1. Open standards historically have come about *after* proprietary solutions, not before. One vendor comes up with something, then they all jump in with competing solutions, then a few of them get together get together, carve out a standard, and bring the ISO in, if only to spite the first vendor.
      2. VB is a language, .NET is a framework. Javascript showed up much earlier than .NET; they never competed as web technologies. ActiveX would have been a better example. I doubt he knows what ActiveX is.
      3. Apple never "won the desktop computing war."
      4. In what sense was Windows more open than MacOS in those days? That it ran on compatibles? So what? The only advantage of compatibles were that they were cheap. Just like today, both platforms will run whatever code you write for them. Thus, open platforms. Plus nobody actually ran Windows 3.1, they pirated it and then continued used DOSShell.
      5. Android is growing quickly because it didn't exist a little while ago... two phones sold from one is 100% growth.
      6. Android has nothing to do with anything, especially not Flash and *especially* not 90s operating systems.

      They marked him troll because they were being generous by assuming that he *knows* he's saying idiotic things. That or they were lamenting the lack of a "-1 head trauma" mod.

    3. Re:Hello, mods? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Because, around here, "Troll" == "I disagree with you". Seriously, are you new around here?

    4. Re:Hello, mods? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Well, some of your statements are correct but not all of them. Lots of people paid for and used Windows 3.1. How do you think Corel got started?

    5. Re:Hello, mods? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a Corel?

    6. Re:Hello, mods? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      One of the places WordPerfect went to die.

    7. Re:Hello, mods? by soliptic · · Score: 1

      1. That's actually what he said in the first place: "open standards usually follow proprietary"

      Otherwise: yes, mod parent up, etc.

  29. LOL! LOL! LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    LOL!

    Didn't really give a shit about Flash before. But now that I see fucking retards like you desperately and frantically trying to spout this shit hoping it somehow effects some sort of change on the web is just fucking awesome.

    The fact that Flash is here to stay.
    The fact that Flash is on some 95 percent of computers.
    The fact that there is nothing remotely close to Flash's content tools or will be for many, many years.
    The fact that tens of millions of Android phones will be upgrading to Flash very soon.
    The fact that Google now has Chrome auto-updating Flash.

    And the fact that all of this ABSOLUTELY KILLS MISERABLE FUCKS LIKE YOU.

    Is FUCKING AWESOME.

    Cry bitch. Cry.

  30. Still not video by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Their HTML5 section isn't.

    Weither or not the HTML5 reader is up and running on specific portions of the site is not relevant. It still has nothing to do with video.

    As much as I admire the effort to make people think beyond video with HTML5, this was just a terrible time to bring that up.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  31. I would never let my HTML sit in a Flash 'window' by outsider007 · · Score: 1

    What if someone bumps my computer? It could fall out and the links would break.

    --
    If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
  32. yay a no name site by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Troll

    gratz scribd, you'll have no more impact on my life then you did before html5.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:yay a no name site by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Yep, they really just need to forget about new tech, and realise that their document distribution dreams are solved perfectly well by anonymous ftp.

  33. The experience isn't actually any better by DeanLearner · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So from a clients perspective (mine in this case)the HTML5 experience is slow whereas the flash experience is reasonably quick.

    And from the server point of view HTML5 is slower as well...

    HTML5 - Served by app04 in 1.168 secs. cpu: 1.100

    Flash - Served by app10 in 0.482 secs. cpu: 0.420

    What's the point then?

    1. Re:The experience isn't actually any better by intoxination · · Score: 1

      I just noticed the same thing. It's also going to be interesting to see how Scribd handles the ability to embed documents in external sites. Right now their embed option is still in Flash. Will they also move that to HTML5?

    2. Re:The experience isn't actually any better by IpSo_ · · Score: 1

      Yup, same experience for me too.

      Their flash viewer is nice and smooth with scrolling, supports search and works quite well.

      The HTML5 viewer is horrible slow (using Chrome on a quad-core Linux box) and doesn't even support search.

      Apparently "just got better" means something entirely different to them then to their users.

      --
      Open Source Time and Attendance, Job Costing a
  34. Why the hell not? by paiute · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Well, if you are going there anyway to check it out, you might as well go to my documents:

    http://www.scribd.com/sascoggin

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  35. 1. Enable HTML mode in Scribd settings by jetxee · · Score: 1

    Works fine with NoScript if you allow both www.scribd.com and scribdassets.com. Without scripts only the first three pages are loaded and default fonts are used.

    To read other documents in HTML5 one needs to enable it in his Scribd settings (http://www.scribd.com/account/edit).

  36. Great move, works great. by herojig · · Score: 1

    Well that site just got a lot better. One down, millions more to go...including my own which may never switch over after all the pain spent building the flashes; why would a small company with limited resources and very little iphone/ipad traffic spend the money to change?

    --
    I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
  37. Try making the DMCA work for YOU by tepples · · Score: 1

    I found 4 of my PDFs there ( 3 presentations, one ebook) and the people who uploaded them were making money off it and so was Scribd (ads).

    That's what section 512 takedown notices are for. Or did you send one and then get a counter-notice?

  38. HTML5 is bad news for FOSS desktop users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For linux/bsd/etc users, the switch from Flash to HTML5 is going to be pretty bad news. With Flash, sites generally work even if they are not specifically tested with different browsers and FOSS platforms. With HTML5, every browser will be different, and the same browser between say Windows and Ubuntu, may have subtle differences in how they render. Sites like scribd will probably test with Windows and OS X and leave everyone else to hope it works for them.

    Something tells me this is one of the main reasons Microsoft and Apple are so eager to adopt it.

  39. Filling the gap that's no longer there by lewster32 · · Score: 1

    I've long been a Flash advocate, but it's clear even to me that Flash has simply been filling a gap that was missing in the world of HTML/CSS/JS. Apple have simply delivered the final blow and made it so there's not really much choice but to go down the HTML5 route. As a developer who has to turn around websites quickly, this is a major pain in the arse; doing the same thing in HTML as in Flash may be generally possible but it takes a hell of a lot longer, has to run the gauntlet of browser differences and finally be degradable for those on IE.

    I'm sad to see Flash go (and at least in its current guise - as a browser plug-in - it will disappear), but I can understand the logic, even if I don't particularly like it.

    --
    Lew
  40. Mod Parent Up! Well said response by blahbooboo · · Score: 1

    Because his history is entirely made up. Looks like he started following computers a week ago and then just assumed the last 20 years look just like last week, and somehow it all magically goes back to his... choice of cell phone? WTF?

    1. Open standards historically have come about *after* proprietary solutions, not before. One vendor comes up with something, then they all jump in with competing solutions, then a few of them get together get together, carve out a standard, and bring the ISO in, if only to spite the first vendor. 2. VB is a language, .NET is a framework. Javascript showed up much earlier than .NET; they never competed as web technologies. ActiveX would have been a better example. I doubt he knows what ActiveX is. 3. Apple never "won the desktop computing war." 4. In what sense was Windows more open than MacOS in those days? That it ran on compatibles? So what? The only advantage of compatibles were that they were cheap. Just like today, both platforms will run whatever code you write for them. Thus, open platforms. Plus nobody actually ran Windows 3.1, they pirated it and then continued used DOSShell. 5. Android is growing quickly because it didn't exist a little while ago... two phones sold from one is 100% growth. 6. Android has nothing to do with anything, especially not Flash and *especially* not 90s operating systems.

    They marked him troll because they were being generous by assuming that he *knows* he's saying idiotic things. That or they were lamenting the lack of a "-1 head trauma" mod.

  41. Flash egg sausage and Flash by tepples · · Score: 1

    "Waitress: Well, there's Flash egg sausage and Flash, that's not got much Flash in it.
    Wife: I don't want ANY Flash!"

    I think TheRaven64's idea is to serve no Flash to users of Safari, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and IE + Chrome Frame, and serve only minimal Flash to users of IE with no Chrome Frame.

  42. Scribd needs to die by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    The motherfuckers force you to register to download PDFs. Even when it's stuff that's otherwise freely available. Oh and their Flash viewer is the worst UI I've encountered, c'm'on, a tiny widget with scrollbars, instead of opening my PDF viewer of choice, that's so frustrating I curse the fuckers for hours after I've been tricked into clicking a scribd URL. Will it be better with HTML5? I don't know, it will still be just as fucking useless.

  43. Google does not add DRM to your works by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    That festering pile of pus that is Scribd is not just copying works, it's altering them in such a way as to victimise both the users and the creator.

    It needs to die, or at least to get out of Google's search results.

  44. good by cas2000 · · Score: 1

    maybe now scribd won't be a completely worthless waste of space on google searches and i can reconfigure my firefox Optimize Google plugin to stop filtering out scribd.com search results.