Slashdot Mirror
OK Go Goes HTML5
edumacator writes "The YouTube sensation OK Go has just released their latest video using HTML5. The video is pretty cool itself, but the interactive feature is great." It looks like the interactive stuff only works in Chrome.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
WTF? I think I'm going to throw up now.
You sir, owe it to yourself to observe more frequently the fecal matter of homosexuals. It will spare you the embarrassment of making such an incorrect statement again.
Human Centipede II: The commercially-funded, neo-MTV sensation.
"This site works best with..." remember the loathe 'we' used to have for that phrase, because it was almost invariably followed by "Internet Explorer"?
Welcome to semi-recent developments where that phrase makes its comeback, now to be followed by Google Chrome.
So I'll augment my post from yesterday with:
How about installing Google Chrome when you want to watch an online presentation purportedly made using HTML5 standard tech?
WT Heck. This video is so annoying I couldn't even finish watching it. And a web site that says "You have to download and install a Google product to use me"? Um, no thanks?
It takes me about 3 seconds to leave a web site that says I have to download a Google product to view it.
"Left To My Own Devices" by the Pet Shop Boys? For those who do, the OK video looks only half as impressive.
They tea bagged me multiple times in this video
I read it, and I agree. You have my support. Thanks for calling them like you see them. But bah whatever, you posted anon and probably won't check for replies...
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
(facepalm) yet another shining example of functional illiteracy running rampant in our society.
"Literally".... good grief.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
At least Flash was pretty much playable in most browsers.
Opinions - you're entitled to have 'm.
Since the release involved HTML5, something that jives well within the 'nerd' demographic? (as does the band, to an extent, given that they're not generally 'pop' and make wacky videos).
Slashdot did the same with Radiohead's open sourcing of their music video:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/08/07/18/1436211/Radiohead-Open-Sources-Music-Video
Be glad that this time it was posted under Idle?
It's called 'convenience'. You may not appreciate it, but most people do. In fact, I think Slashdot should do so far more often.
While I, myself, am no fan of the style either, I don't think it's the video's content that is the reason for its posting.
I wouldn't know - it's apparently a "This site works best with (read: only with) Google Chrome". Can't be bothered to install it.
They may be riding the momentum from back when they very much were (you know, the treadmill thing). if nothing else, many sites pick up on new 'Ok Go!' video releases because, as mentioned above, it's always something rather different from what you'd usually see. As such, perhaps 'sensation' is too strongly worded, but it captures the general idea.
It's called AdBlock (or one of various alternatives) - you might want to look into it.
You seem very angry - I don't know why, it's not like you're all that new here.
I like Ok Go, They have an interesting way of using non-cgi to make interesting music videos... however looking at this video from a technical project standpoint... do the browser features (aka: HTML5) really add anything to this video? Don't get me wrong, the capabilities of the browser are really neat, and I bet it was quite the project to put this together. But, the technology doesn't really add anything visually to the video. It just stacks windows next to and on top of each other... might as well skip the multiple windows and just create frames or for that sake, just have them in a single video... I think Arcade Fire's video at http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/ was a lot more interesting and a lot better use of web-tech. For one, it used Google maps data in a little more interesting of a way than simply writing out your message w/ feet. Also, they were able to use single backdrop with objects popping up in windows in different areas rather than just a matrix of windows playing a different video stream.
Google. You're turning evil. In fact, over the last year you've turned way more evil than I could ever have anticipated. What with Chromebooks turning Chrome into a 'proprietary apps' platform, when those apps, save for their 'Chrome packaging' should have been normal webapps for any browser ... and now this.
I'm out.
Note:. This didn't even work in Chromium. CHROMIUM!!! I had to get 'Google Chrome' for it to work.
Don't you hate it when that blasted RMS eventually keeps turning out right all the time ... :(
If you touch any of the dozen windows that it opens up things will not work as intended. Even tabing to the other windows just to see what it opened up will cause it to be a bit off in its presentation.
The video and music are far from the worst thing I've ever seen. I mean, compared to the current state of American pop music this is high art. That said, this feels like pop music for people who like to pretend they don't like pop music.
And what happened with HTML5 being an open, cross-platform standard? I thought we had seen the last of browser-specific websites. Either the developers were too lazy to ensure this worked in all browsers or, far more likely, they were pushed into making this Chrome only. Either way, it doesn't bode well for HTML5 at all especially if companies are going to start offering proprietary variations.
It's probably not good for the future of Chrome either. Microsoft could get away with it because they already had massive market share by the time this sort of thing started happening. And at the time it happened mostly because developers couldn't be bothered to support other browsers.
Who the fuck is "OK Go" ?? /. running an advert for them?
And why
Also, their crappy site says:
>>We're sorry, but this content was designed with the browser Google Chrome in mind.
>> As a result, it may not work properly in your current browser. We recommend using Google Chrome.
"Recommend" ?? Bullshit. It won't let you see it in any other browser. That's not recommending.
In summation, a mediocre artsy group released a shit video using an HTML5able codec so they can be whored around by Google to get a greater browser market share.
tmb;dw (Too much bulge; didn't watch)
"This is a Chrome Experiment"
and this is me closing the page *click*
Does the constant hate ever get exhausting? I mean, I know it's trendy nowadays, but it wears me the fuck out.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Taint all that good.
So when Apple posts HTML5 demos that only work in Safari, everyone shit on them. I fully expect here on Slashdot to jump on Google's case for making this Chrome-only. Right, guys? Guys?
The link to the "interactive" portion after putting in your message and hitting "Go" opens up 15 separate Chrome Windows. Thanks for the warning douchedot...
Ave Molech Setting
As we don't get a new feet font.
did they put dudes in that video at all. Men in tights aren't a good thing from any angle.
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
+1 Insightful.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm not saying this video is gay, but Marcus Bachmann says it's "fabulous".
And he shits Frogurt, so draw your own conclusions.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Gross!
love is just extroverted narcissism
Okay, so the message when visiting with Safari says "We're sorry, but this content was designed with the browser Google Chrome in mind. As a result, it may not work properly in your current browser. We recommend using Google Chrome." So I think, "Well, Chrome essentially cribbed their HTML5 engine from Safari, so I should be good. I'll give it a try." Unfortunately, there's no way to get past the message. Perhaps they should rephrase "It may not work in your current browser" to "We won't let you view this with anything but Chrome." Ah well. It will take more than an interactive movie video to make me install Chrome. *close*
of any features being labeled as "HTML5 compliant" right now, especially if they only work on one browser. Every browser maker has a code base that they use to add features to their browser, and every single one of them is going to try to push features into this "open specification" that best suit the code base THEY already have and best suit THEIR position in the browser market. If web developers and users strongly favor one browser's list of supported features before the specification is even finalized, the open-ness of the specifcation doesn't make a difference. That browser gets to skip the first step and jump right to Extend and Extinguish.
It's a cool idea and the YouTube video is neat, but requiring Chrome? Non-starter. I'm sure it's because they're pushing WebM video out, and so it's just another shot in Google's War On Apple (the WebM vs. H.264 battle again). No thanks. I use Chrome on occasion, but I refuse to use websites that require one specific browser even when it's supposedly up to standards.
Last summer when Arcade Fire did their Chrome Experiments video (the interactive film for "We Used to Wait"), it rendered really well on Safari and Chrome, OK on prerelease Firefox builds, and not really on IE8, but that was because it really was built in HTML5 and made concerted efforts to be neutral.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
It was just a video playing across a bunch of windows - didn't seem very interractive to me. Oh, apart from entering a message and seeing video loops of the letters at the end. Maybe I'm just jaded by the WebGL work I've seen recently, but this didn't really impress me that much.Probably didn't help that I hated the video and the music, but meh.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Man, I thought the cyclists around here wore *their* clothes too tight! That's more crotch (male and female) than I had hoped to see. Art, I guess.
At the moment it appears Chrome is the furthest along
Based on what? The fact this site only uses Chrome?
All of the webkit based browsers are neck in neck. There's no reason other than marketing this site could not use Safari or Mozilla.
Sadly changing the user agent alone does not appear to be enough to trick it...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What was with the separate windows anyway? I didn't see anything there (Even the messaging at the end) that couldn't be done with jQuery and some content injection into separate 'move around' divs under HTML 4.x. Could get the same effect, even better, since everything would be done on the same page rather than a bunch of separate windows. And compatible with multiple browsers.
Lame, really lame. Not impressed in the least.
However looking up at the blue women dancing almost seemed like you were watching them without pants on a black & white TV. The guys, not so much.
that both your and my comments haven't been modded down just tells how stupid this article is. chrome is the new "works only in this xx browser" and "experiment" is a code word for "advertisement"
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
the 3ds advert is in the linked youtube video, making slashdot show it, while having no bonus for slashdot for showing it. the site itself is just a chrome advert, designed to get people to download chrome, for no other reason than using js to sync videos in sub windows, the experiment would have been doable with flash, or even with animated .gif's. though I think the site might actually work in latest firefox builds if you faked the browser strings. it's not "rather different" either, that's the problem with the art direction in it, it's basic dance school stuff on top of a plexiglass with some highschool course doable coding. lady gaga's backup dancers did more work.. so an article about new OPEN web techniques that links to a chrome only site, which embeds a FLASH video in the article.. yes, I think slashdot editors could have done better and that's why 80% of the comments here are just bitching.. don't take the angry card btw. you know that they could've done it, this experiment, in other browsers and they should have, even if to only show the difference between them. it was obvious what the interactive feature would be right when the video started making text out with their feet. right then it was pretty obvious that they just did each letter and after that there wasn't much to guess what the interactive feature would be. which btw is something the article submission could've included. html5's just become a codeword for google to do chrome only stuff, it's disgusting.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
that both your and my comments haven't been modded down just tells how stupid this article is. chrome is the new "works only in this xx browser" and "experiment" is a code word for "advertisement"
And that's certainly a valid complaint. I can understand being annoyed/frustrated at that, and I'm inclined to agree with you. It's like you said however, "this post is like a youtube lame comment." I was just hoping for better. :/
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Don't make your text fucking white on almost-white. It is completely unreadable.
Design rule number 2, make it fucking work. This is a cross-browser language you used. Why use HTML5 if you're not going to make it work on HTML5 compatible browsers?
I am not devoid of humor.
My god, I cannot believe how whiny everybody is being about this. For fuck's sake, nobody's twisting your arm.
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.