Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OK Go Goes HTML5

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the can-you-feel-the-music? dept.

Media 171

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.

cancel ×

171 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

IRONY OVERLOAD (5, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900078)

  • 1. OK Go - Probably brought initial wave of people to Youtube
  • 2. New video promotion trying to show support for HTML5, an open standard and helps bring an end to flash.
  • 3. Website message when visiting with Firefox 5: We're sorry, but this content was designed with the browser Google Chrome in mind.
  • 4. Google trying to not be evil, yet icons at the bottom saying "Made with some friends from Google"

WTF? I think I'm going to throw up now.

This site works best with... (3)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900354)

"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 [slashdot.org] with:
How about installing Google Chrome when you want to watch an online presentation purportedly made using HTML5 standard tech?

Re:This site works best with... (1)

rumith (983060) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900448)

The difference is that IE used proprietary components and deliberately borked standards in order to achieve monopoly, and Chrome really uses open standards and protocols. The problem is that Google is developing it at such an astonishing pace that competitors are literally left in the dust. Oh, and I could also bring in the fact that Chromium is open source, but integrating its components into a browser with a substantially different architecture must be no easy task, so I think that doesn't really help.

Re:This site works best with... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900730)

If that is true, then anyone else who uses those open standards' browser should work as well. Unless of course you code in a check for browser type and quit if it isn't the one you want without even trying to run.

Re:This site works best with... (2)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900744)

I think the difference is not as big as some may think it to be, though.

Ultimately if a site developer chooses to use certain desired (by them) features that make the site work better in a particular browser and slaps on a "site works best in..." disclaimer, then it's still that site developer's doing.

Whether those features are proprietary (not counting ActiveX bits, which were rarely the reason for such disclaimers) or part of a work-in-progress standard (HTML5 has not been finalized) doesn't really matter much there.

This in no way undermines what you're saying about development pace, mind. But when you couple it with the fact that Google helped make the page, you have to ask yourself if they really are just trying to be 'hip with Web 2.0' and making an interactive HTML5 video, or whether they're really just helping push Google Chrome onto more desktops by virtue of using HTML5 features that they undoubtedly knew would only work proper in Google Chrome / Chromium.

Re:This site works best with... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900894)

... by virtue of using HTML5 features that they undoubtedly knew would only work proper in Google Chrome / Chromium.

Features that they say will only work properly in Google Chrome. I even tried spoofing my User Agent but it still won't let me watch it.

Re:This site works best with... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900932)

The difference is that IE used proprietary components and deliberately borked standards in order to achieve monopoly,

Google are playing a similar game with WebM, WebP and SPDY. Maybe they're "open" (as in Google dumped a bunch of code and half baked specs out there) but it doesn't mean they're not divisive. We've already seen a schism over WebM and the same is likely to occur with the other specs. It's also likely that since Google holds the reins to these specs that even compliant browsers may find themselves playing continuous catchup to the "reference" browser and looking inferior by comparison.

Re:This site works best with... (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901086)

It's also likely that since Google holds the reins to these specs that even compliant browsers may find themselves playing continuous catchup to the "reference" browser and looking inferior by comparison.

This is the kind of competition I am ok with.
Everyone racing to keep up with the guy innovating the fastest is great.

As long as the standards are open. The people win with better browsers.

Re:This site works best with... (1)

Piata (927858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901094)

I wouldn't really call it astonishing. They are ahead of Firefox but not by much and some of their implementations are very rushed proof of concepts that will have to be re-written to match the changing standards.

For example, if you look at the implementations of the gradient property, everyone handles it the exact same standards compliant way, but older versions of chrome (under version 10) have some really screwed up and non-intuitive syntax to follow for it.

The whole point of standards is to future proof your site so that it will render properly in all current and future browsers. If you take advantage of some feature in a browser that's only in the proposal stages, odds are that functionality will break by the time it reaches working draft status.

Re:This site works best with... (2, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901148)

So it's more closed-open [extremetech.com] bullshit from Google?

If Chrome uses open standards and protocols, there's no reason for it to be Chrome-only. You say competitors are "left in the dust" because Chrome is developed at such an "astonishing pace" (it's easy to appear that way when you constantly bump major version numbers), but Chrome is based on the open source WebKit, the same engine Safari uses that was developed mostly by Apple. There's nothing particularly unique to Chrome except for its Javascript engine, which doesn't use some futuristic version of Javascript that nobody else can run.

Not to mention that the claim that Chrome is based entirely on "open standards and protocols" is ridiculous--the browser ships the closed-source, proprietary Flash plug-in and supports both AAC and MP3 audio playback.

Re:This site works best with... (3, Insightful)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901242)

> and Chrome really uses open standards and
> protocols.

Except it doesn't. It uses a mishmash of open standards, proposed open standards, things they wrote up and threw over the "standards" wall, and flat-out proprietary extensions.

Seriously, try to implement CSS Animations based on the "draft spec". You can't. It's too vague to actually implement it without reverse-engineering WebKit first. And that's one of the ones that people are actually planning to standardize, unlike some of the other stuff Chrome is implementing.

> The problem is that Google is developing it at such
> an astonishing pace

The "problem" is that Google is implementing random things, exposing them to the web, encouraging people to use them, and maybe writing up a vague description of what the functionality is supposed to do (not enough to actually implement interoperably) and calling that a "standards draft".

Pretty similar to the way Microsoft did OOXML, actually. Except they wrote a better spec.

Re:This site works best with... (2)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901278)

And to be clear, the real problems are encouraging people to use the new stuff and pretending it's open standards when it's not and when it's not ready for production use. And then people doing just that, whether because they don't know any better or because they don't care, on public-facing sites.

Re:This site works best with... (4, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900454)

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

"We recommend"? No. We DEMAND . If you mean it, say it. Or provide a "try it anyway" button.

Re:This site works best with... (1)

Antidamage (1506489) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901178)

If by "works best" they mean "opens 50 browser windows" then that's what I get using Chrome on Ubuntu.

Re:This site works best with... (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901790)

Same here on OS X Lion newest Chrome. Dozens of open windows and slow loading. Not impressed- especially since we all know HTML5 can do way better.

Re:This site works best with... (1)

xclr8r (658786) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901870)

I got the same thing on Windows so your O/S is not alone. I accidentally used my mouse and it focused on the chrome black backdrop window that was still part of the presentation and it hid the tiled windows. The only way to watch the rest of the video was to minimize the black backdrop. Did that then had a bunch of tiled browsers showing the video against my desktop image. I also had address bars when going through the 2 x 2 browser tile set. Guess that's why they want to kill the address bar. Either it's sloppy coding or HTML needs more work to be a standard to lock those browser tiles into place.

This reminds me of the good ol' days when you clicked the wrong ad and tons of browser windows started popping open. Thank goodness for noscript and adblockers. This browser/music video doesn't inspire me so much as scares me on all the stuff novice users are going to unintentionally click and the clean up I'll have to do afterwards. Online banking is going to need to be thoroughly tested which is always the case but even more so with an HTML 5 browser. Sorry if this sounds like FUD but these are genuine concerns of mine.

Re:IRONY OVERLOAD (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900372)

Proof of concept, people. Nothing more.

Re:IRONY OVERLOAD (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900514)

Chrome Advertisement, people. Nothing more.

Re:IRONY OVERLOAD (0)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900518)

More than that. Proof of concept of a draft standard which no browser currently implements completely, consistently, or correctly.

Re:IRONY OVERLOAD (0)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900658)

Proof of concept = cool. Proof of concept that appears to be using UserAgent to decide whether to work or not = !cool.

Its one thing to test for a certain feature that is required, and a whole nother thing to test for a browser, which seems (from what I can tell of their JS, I'm not a JS expert by any means) to be what they are doing.

Re:IRONY OVERLOAD (1)

UberLaff (730967) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900378)

Google: "See OK Go in HTML5; a new proprietary format for Chrome by Google! Don't be evil!"

Re:IRONY OVERLOAD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900426)

I've been playing with a lot of webgl type stuff lately.

Firefox is not ready. It has serious showstopper bugs that prevent it from doing anything more than basic demos that use one shader at the moment.

For instance, if I have a vertex shader, and two different fragment shaders, and if the fragment shaders have different uniforms (one has a solidColor uniform, the other doesnt), FF will create a second program, with some nonsense error. Basically, every shader has to include (and use, because the compiler will optimize them out!) every uniform, or else it wont work.

So your shaders are full of dumb shit noops and whatnot, just so you can use more than one effect in a scene.

Anyways.. Firefox is a few years out. IE with a plugin has much better support right now.

Re:IRONY OVERLOAD (1)

Penguin (4919) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900560)

Apparently the video requires a browser that supports opening tens of windows and moving them around all over the screen for maximum annoyance.

Not a great sales argument for Chrome.

Re:IRONY OVERLOAD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900608)

Vomiting works best on Google Chrome.

Re:IRONY OVERLOAD (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901350)

I don't know, it's been a few minutes and I'm still looking at "Loading...8%"

Is this really how good HTML 5 is? And if it's because the site is being Slashdotted, couldn't they have gotten a little more server space, considering they are "Internet pioneers" and this was a joint project with Google?

Maybe they could put out a Flash version that works.

Re:IRONY OVERLOAD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36901832)

It's ironic that you probably can't get laid, whereas just about any Google engineer probably could. Oh, and anyone in the band OK Go...

This is the gayest shit I've ever seen. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900118)

Literally the gayest shit I've ever seen. Seriously, WTF?

Re:This is the gayest shit I've ever seen. (3, Funny)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900152)

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.

Re:This is the gayest shit I've ever seen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900184)

your so gay n u dont even lyk boiz

Re:This is the gayest shit I've ever seen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900238)

Are you saying gay shit can only come from the asshole of a homosexual? How do you know your shit isn't gay? Do you ask it? Personally I find your insinuation hateful and insulting. As a civilized human being, I let my fecal matter make it's own decisions on sexual orientation rather than forcing it to conform to my own preferences.

Re:This is the gayest shit I've ever seen. (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900446)

(facepalm) yet another shining example of functional illiteracy running rampant in our society.

"Literally".... good grief.

Mod Parent Up (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901374)

Literally the gayest shit I've ever seen. Seriously, WTF?

+1 Insightful.

Holy Hipster overload batman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900154)

Not only was it not very impressive in *ANY* way. Technically, musically or even artistically.

But bah whatever I'm anon and only people who are going to even read this will vote it down anyhow...

Re:Holy Hipster overload batman (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900404)

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...

Re:Holy Hipster overload batman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36902060)

I sometimes check, just never bothered making a slashdot account, on account of me also liking to post when I'm in a trolling mood sometimes as well :)

AKA (1)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900174)

Human Centipede II: The commercially-funded, neo-MTV sensation.

Re:AKA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900232)

The Human Centipede is actually a great horror movie. Go see it!

Re:AKA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900236)

And why does the woman have a "budgie smuggler" bulge like the guys?!

Re:AKA (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900344)

Seriously. I haven't even seen that movie, but the first thing I thought was human centipede.

sorry, shitty band. (0)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900196)

and even if it were great, wtf. since when did slashdot become an art channel for specific releases and having videos embedded in the fucking article? WHAT THE FUCK? it's fucking '70s "artsy" too, no pixels in sight. this was not enabled by the new gen web techniques. this is shit. sorry. also, they're not a sensation. on top of all that shit, there's a fucking nintendo 3ds advert there.

and yeah this post is like a youtube lame comment, but you know what, so is this fucking article. I bet i'll have to add some nice words about spandex and plexiglass here so that the stool filter will let me post this.

Re:sorry, shitty band. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900350)

Please go back to wherever it is you came from. We don't want you here.
Especially when you don't even know why this is posted. Not to mention the IDLE up there.

Re:sorry, shitty band. (3)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900506)

sorry, shitty band.

Opinions - you're entitled to have 'm.

and even if it were great, wtf. since when did slashdot become an art channel for specific releases

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 [slashdot.org]
Be glad that this time it was posted under Idle?

and having videos embedded in the fucking article?

It's called 'convenience'. You may not appreciate it, but most people do. In fact, I think Slashdot should do so far more often.

it's fucking '70s "artsy" too

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.

this was not enabled by the new gen web techniques. this is shit.

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.

also, they're not a sensation

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.

there's a fucking nintendo 3ds advert there.

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.

Re:sorry, shitty band. (3, Interesting)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900916)

Does the constant hate ever get exhausting? I mean, I know it's trendy nowadays, but it wears me the fuck out.

feet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900242)

feet.

Youtube Sensation??? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900360)

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.

Re:Youtube Sensation??? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901512)

Three whole seconds? Wow, you're much more tolerant to that kind of crap than I am.

Re:Youtube Sensation??? (1)

EvilStein (414640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901820)

Exactly. And I think this band sucks. I didn't give a flying turkey about their last youtube video either, and I don't care about this one.

I don't have Chrome installed on this machine, and won't either. Oh well...

Does anyone remember (1)

BitterKraut (820348) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900366)

"Left To My Own Devices" by the Pet Shop Boys? For those who do, the OK video looks only half as impressive.

Re:Does anyone remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36901926)

"Left To My Own Devices" by the Pet Shop Boys? For those who do, the OK video looks only half as impressive.

I shouldn't have looked that up on YouTube. What a terrible video.

Offended (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900402)

They tea bagged me multiple times in this video

So shatters the internet (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900504)

At least Flash was pretty much playable in most browsers.

Not this "best viewed with.." bullshit again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900512)

If it doesn't work in at least 90% of the installed browsers, it shouldn't be on the public web.

Arcade Fire's was better and why HTML5? (5, Interesting)

Chetti (1959778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900522)

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/ [thewildern...wntown.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.

Re:Arcade Fire's was better and why HTML5? (1)

Hadean (32319) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900878)

And Arcade Fire's music is a /lot/ better too...

Re:Arcade Fire's was better and why HTML5? (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902078)

that is a very impressive example.. although i did laugh that on mine it had the guy running though cars..

Re:Arcade Fire's was better and why HTML5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36902128)

The point of HTML 5 here was generating your message at the end. It let them stream individual letters to each window and have the video make any message you type in. Can't do that with multiple frames in a single video, the dynamic message part. Interesting, meh. Am I going to get HTML just for that? Nope!

Google is evil. RMS was right. (5, Insightful)

recrudescence (1383489) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900524)

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 ... :(

Re:Google is evil. RMS was right. (1)

ya really (1257084) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900622)

Note:. This didn't even work in Chromium. CHROMIUM!!! I had to get 'Google Chrome' for it to work.

Sure it does. I used SRWare Iron 12 [srware.net] , which is built off the chromium source and it worked just fine. Perhaps you are using an older version of chromium.

Re:Google is evil. RMS was right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36902080)

Wow, does that even still exist? I thought everyone knew by now what a giant troll the SRWare guy is.

Re:Google is evil. RMS was right. (1)

ManTaboo (2027174) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901128)

I used Chromium 12.0.742.124 and it worked fine for me.

Re:Google is evil. RMS was right. (1)

psyclone (187154) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901834)

It fails for me with: Chromium 12.0.742.112. It "loads" something to 100%, then goes back to 00% and idles there.

Very annoying you can't at least try it in other html5 capable browsers though. User agent branching fail.

Re:Google is evil. RMS was right. (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901930)

In fact, over the last year you've turned way more evil than I could ever have anticipated.

You never anticipated this? How adorable.

My nightmares about Google tend to include orbiting battle stations and fleets of flying "Are You Feeling Lucky? (tm) search and destroy drones. That comes after the iRobot / Apple merger and the Roomba Wars, of course.

Not as impressive if.. (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900548)

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.

Re:Not as impressive if.. (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900848)

It's because chrome doesn't support window.focus(). I know because I've made similar html5 app, but it somewhat worked under chrome, ie, safari and firefox (it can be done). Sorry that I don't post a link, but their servers won't survive slashdotting and the app isn't that cool either.

Re:Not as impressive if.. (1)

sanso999 (997008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901490)

Which is exactly what I did the first time I tried to watch it, since I confused "interactive" with "shift things about and see what happens". I still rather like it though, after I managed to just watch it and see what it did.

Re:Not as impressive if.. (1)

poity (465672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901518)

I don't know if I like this either. So they take away the annoyance of Flash, but now we have 10+ popup windows moving around on their own. It's not a refreshing change, and actually more annoying.

Not a good sign... (2)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900580)

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.

Re:Not a good sign... (2)

PieSquared (867490) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901378)

"And what happened with HTML5 being an open, cross-platform standard"

Nothing. It's just that so far nobody has a complete implementation, and different browsers have different parts working. At the moment it appears Chrome is the furthest along, and they're pushing people to use their working subset of HTML5 to the fullest with the whole "chrome experiments" thing. The others will catch up eventually.

Re:Not a good sign... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36902002)

this feels like pop music for people who like to pretend they don't like pop music.

Try Jim's Big Ego: unpop for the unpopulous!

WHO?? and Why?? (4, Interesting)

luckymutt (996573) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900632)

Who the fuck is "OK Go" ??
And why /. running an advert for them?

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.

Re:WHO?? and Why?? (1)

WhiteDragon (4556) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901566)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who had never heard of them.

Re:WHO?? and Why?? (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901986)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who had never heard of them.

You haven't? But they did that Youtube video with the treadmills, and the tracksuits, and the... oh, and apparently they're a band too? Hey, I didn't know that.

Re:WHO?? and Why?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36901598)

They were a nobody band that made an ultra cheap music video they coreographed on like 5 tredmills that was actually pretty entertaining.

But yeah, forget google.

Re:WHO?? and Why?? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901714)

They didn't just use an HTML5 Codec, they used some features of HTML other than the video component.

HTML 5 killed the Flash star. (1)

boeroboy (1501771) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900676)

Oh wait scratch that - doesn't work. Server is overloaded and the Youtube version is done playing by the time the HTML 5 version has finished loading.

New acronym? (1)

elguap0 (758827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900684)

tmb;dw (Too much bulge; didn't watch)

Bottom left side of the page (4, Insightful)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900704)

"This is a Chrome Experiment"

and this is me closing the page *click*

Re:Bottom left side of the page (1)

boeroboy (1501771) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900768)

Yeah it's disappointing. What good is a Chrome experiment without a slow-mo spud gun?

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900710)

Streaming frames using HTML 5 is not very clever IMHO.

I can think of only one reason to like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900742)

I can think of only one reason to like this: all my hipster friends like it, and I have to like it because I'm a hipster too.

Meh... (1)

WelshRarebit (1595637) | more than 3 years ago | (#36900946)

Taint all that good.

video good sound bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36900948)

The audio for me was stuck on full blast and sounded as if it was being played through blown speakers. The video is cool... but you would think musicians would focus more on sound.

Apple (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901058)

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?

Re:Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36901236)

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?

Gosh, it's almost as if the Slashdot community is not a single person who acts hypocritically, but of thousands of different people who often hold opinions that contradict each other. But that's silly. Everyone knows that all communities are hiveminds that march in lockstep on any and all issues. Also, I am Elvis.

Re:Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36901446)

uh, have you seen most of the posts for this? everyone hates the chrome-only-ness of it

Re:Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36901824)

Yeah man, you're like 20 posts too late lol

Do not try to use this site! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36901176)

Definitely a top 10 most annoying web site ever. You click play and it opens about 20 Google Chrome windows and starts playing bad, migraine inducing, loud music. Whoever thought this was a good promotion of anything is freaking nuts.

This is a great example of what you get for trying a Google product. Even their search engine sucks these days as it is nothing but a bunch of SEO spam. You should try a Google Android based phone next, if you like having your cell phone crash more than a windows 95 PC that is.

Should add a warning on that... (1)

greymond (539980) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901204)

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...

Re:Should add a warning on that... (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901486)

I was thinking the same thing, though watching the video shortly shows their use.

Just as long.. (1)

txghia58 (951109) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901232)

As we don't get a new feet font.

"As a result, it may not work properly..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36901252)

As a result, it may not work properly in your current browser.

It definitely won't work if you don't even let it try, as seems to be the case with Firefox 5.

Eh why.. (1)

generic (14144) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901336)

did they put dudes in that video at all. Men in tights aren't a good thing from any angle.

Doesn't work for me, even in Chrome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36901394)

Sorry, OK Go. It looks like this website is an "oh no". Whenever I click "Ok" on the website I am greeted with "Error: Not Found
The requested URL /post was not found on this server."

I don't know... (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901408)

I'm not saying this video is gay, but Marcus Bachmann says it's "fabulous".

And he shits Frogurt, so draw your own conclusions.

Re:I don't know... (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901600)

Bachmann is also know to sway, lisp and gesture like a Liberace overdosing on hormone replacement. He has such a high internal gayness quotient, it exceeds the planck limit of gayness per cubic planck length, his core is collapsing into a gay dirac delta function at the same time radiating a massive fount of gaydons, which can transform normal baryonic matter into its gaydronic counterpart in the Queer Model.

Human Centipede (1)

avandesande (143899) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901476)

Gross!

Hmph. (3, Insightful)

gh0st1nth3mach1n3 (554152) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901564)

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*

XTube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36901766)

That's a lotta flesh pressing against my screen...

I would be wary (1)

Code Yanker (2359188) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902056)

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.

Wow - Trolls Trolls Trolls (0)

MadC0der (2422890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902090)

Name one F'ing site that displays HTML5 correctly in IE or Firefox. The only browser that "FULLY" supports HTML5 so far is chrome. I was blown away by the creativity of this video and even more after reviewing the code. DAMN TROLLS .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>