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!

SlideShare Ditches Flash, Rebuilds Site In HTML5

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the writing-on-the-wall dept.

The Internet 154

Frankie70 writes "SlideShare has ditched Adobe Flash technology entirely, and rebuilt its website using the HTML5 markup language. This means that SlideShare is now viewable on every kind of mobile device, from iPads to iPhones to Android devices and beyond."

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

Questions (2, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537728)

1) Who the hell are SlideShare?

2) Why would I care?

3) What makes it frontpage material for nerds?

Re:Questions (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537750)

There is also the issue of content. Just because you use HTML5, it doesn't mean that all devices will magically be able to use your site. The video you are pushing still needs to be something that the clients can decode. This just avoids the "Steve won't let iPhones run Flash" problem.

Re:Questions (1, Troll)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537850)

Sure. But you can always serve the proper video to the proper user agent. This is no rocket science.

Re:Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37537998)

It's getting towards the end of 2011, and people are still advocating the use of user-agent sniffing? What the hell? The past 20 years of experience with this being a horrible approach hasn't convinced you to avoid it?

Re:Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538106)

Exactly. These html5 advocates want to take us back to the days of "This Site is Best Viewed with [insert browser here]" and it just isn't going to happen, however much they try to spread the hype.

The number 1 paid app on the ipad is actually built in Flash, so even that battle has been lost by poor old Steve!
http://www.leebrimelow.com/?p=3000 [leebrimelow.com]

Re:Questions (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538316)

Why would you say Steve lost? Users lost with a game that consumes 200% more CPU than it would need because the developer was too lazy to code it in the native language. I guess sometimes Good Enough is good enough.

And this crappy game is nowhere near "the number 1 paid app on the ipad" as you put it. It was the top app for 3 days in a row and it is probably already fading into oblivion.

I know you're just a troll, but I still want to set the record straight.

As for user agent sniffing, if you think that was the good old days, you've been living in a cave for the last 5 years.

Which device's native language? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538534)

Users lost with a game that consumes 200% more CPU than it would need because the developer was too lazy to code it in the native language.

In the language of which device?

Say I'm trying to develop an application and make it available for two different devices. I already know I have to code separate front-ends for the two devices to fit into their respective user interface paradigms, but ideally the domain logic should be shared [wikipedia.org] among all platforms. For example, a game's domain logic would include its physics and NPC behaviors. This concept has been called I/O abstraction, model-view-controller, or multitier. Now say one device runs only Objective-C and standard C++ (plus JavaScript in its web browser) and another runs only C#, F#, VB.NET, and other verifiably type-safe languages (plus JavaScript in its web browser). In such a case, in what language do I code the domain logic?

It was the top app for 3 days in a row and it is probably already fading into oblivion.

Be careful with that word, or you might end up on the business end of a lawsuit from Bethesda :p

Re:Which device's native language? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538620)

Users lost with a game that consumes 200% more CPU than it would need because the developer was too lazy to code it in the native language.

In the language of which device?

I think the discussion was about the iPad. So I'd say the iPad.

Say I'm trying to develop an application and make it available for two different devices. I already know I have to code separate front-ends for the two devices to fit into their respective user interface paradigms, but ideally the domain logic should be shared [wikipedia.org] among all platforms. For example, a game's domain logic would include its physics and NPC behaviors. This concept has been called I/O abstraction, model-view-controller, or multitier. Now say one device runs only Objective-C and standard C++ (plus JavaScript in its web browser) and another runs only C#, F#, VB.NET, and other verifiably type-safe languages (plus JavaScript in its web browser). In such a case, in what language do I code the domain logic?

You basically have two choices here:
(A) You can develop everything twice. That is if you place a high value on the quality of your app for each platform. More development, higher quality because said devlopment fit the platform.
(B) You can choose some language that is abstracted on both platforms. Depending of the maturity of said language, you'll get more or less overhead. Less development, less hassle, lower quality for both platforms.

It was the top app for 3 days in a row and it is probably already fading into oblivion.

Be careful with that word, or you might end up on the business end of a lawsuit from Bethesda :p

I'm ready for their lawyers as we speak. That's why I used the word 'probably', so I'm covered as I expressed my own opinion and did not claim it was a fact ;-)

Re:Which device's native language? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538770)

so let me get this right, instead of creating content in one place and then being able to publish it out to a myriad of platforms (web, ipad, android, blackberry, desktop) they should get off their lazy backsides and do things more or less the apple way...?

wow, just wow. please adjust the gain on your reality distortion field, it's beginning to hurt my eyes!

Re:Which device's native language? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538826)

Which part of "You have two choices" (emphasis mine) didn't you get you dumbass?

Re:Which device's native language? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538936)

Can you please try to act slightly more civilized when commenting here? This isn't Digg, reddit, or Hacker News, where petty name-calling and insults are often considered acceptable. Here at Slashdot, we have productive, intellectual discussions. That means we do not call somebody else a "dumbass".

Re:Which device's native language? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37539072)

People answering to "You have two choices" by "Why do you try to impose YOUR choice?" tend to annoy me. And no, this isn't the worst flamewar ever on slashdot, by a pretty fat margin.

Here at Slashdot, we have productive, intellectual discussions

The GP failed harder than me at that rule, since he didn't even read my post. Note that he said his eyes were hurt, hence maybe giving us a hint at why he didn't read what I wrote in the first place.

Re:Which device's native language? (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#37539324)

Which part of "You have two choices" (emphasis mine) didn't you get you dumbass?

Doesn't really matter, as soon as you start commenting like that you lose all credibility and no one cares at all what you say. You are a troll setting out to start a flame war.

Re:Questions (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538366)

It's getting towards the end of 2011, and people are still advocating the use of user-agent sniffing? What the hell? The past 20 years of experience with this being a horrible approach hasn't convinced you to avoid it?

Hmmm. You haven't been very involved in web development lately it would seem. Different devices make it for different UIs. Maybe you missed that part. If you think your website can display itself as nicely on a 320x480 screen through Edge as on a 1920x1200 screen through a 20MB/s DSL connection, well, you've made a heck of a lot of compromises. These devices are best recognized by their User Agent, which by the way is the way the web was designed to work from the start.

Re:Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538402)

User Agent (or any) headers weren't in the web at the start.

Re:Questions (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538494)

You are correct. RFC 1945 officially introduced and recognized HTTP V1.0 in 1996. That's still pretty old, and it was designed for this very purpose.

Re:Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538664)

Please answer this question honestly: How old are you?

I ask merely because your comments come off as if written by somebody who is 12 or 13 years old, and who thus missed out on experiencing a large portion of the WWW's history.

Like others have pointed out, changing the content you're serving based on the User-Agent header value has always been a bad practice, and should be avoided. Every experienced web developer knows this.

Contrary to what you say, the User-Agent header was not originally meant to be used as you describe. Some of the earliest attempts at creating specifications, such as those from 1992 found at http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/HTRQ_Headers.html#user-agent [w3.org] , clearly state that it was meant purely "for statistical purposes and the tracing of protocol violations." Neither of those advocate, nor even suggest, that the response should be modified depending on the header value.

Furthermore, you have clearly misunderstood the purpose of the WWW. It's a system for delivering documents that can link to one another. It is not about creating "UIs", like you mistakenly appear to believe. When used properly, the exact same content should render perfectly fine on all sorts of devices with a wide range of capabilities and display media.

It's only when you misuse the WWW that you start running into the problems that you describe, and have to start attempting the horrible practices that you advocate. Indeed, different devices do need different UIs. The only tenable solution to that problem is to create separate native applications. All attempts at providing cross-platform UIs have failed, regardless of who developed the technology, which platforms were targeted, and when it was attempted. Trust me, you won't succeed any better than they did, and will likely produce a result that is far worse.

Re:Questions (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538790)

Please answer this question honestly: How old are you?

38. I don't see how it's relevant though. And I've been building website professionally for the last 15 years.

I ask merely because your comments come off as if written by somebody who is 12 or 13 years old, and who thus missed out on experiencing a large portion of the WWW's history.

Like others have pointed out, changing the content you're serving based on the User-Agent header value has always been a bad practice, and should be avoided. Every experienced web developer knows this.

Contrary to what you say, the User-Agent header was not originally meant to be used as you describe. Some of the earliest attempts at creating specifications, such as those from 1992 found at http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/HTRQ_Headers.html#user-agent [w3.org] , clearly state that it was meant purely "for statistical purposes and the tracing of protocol violations." Neither of those advocate, nor even suggest, that the response should be modified depending on the header value.

Point taken, I wrote too fast.

Furthermore, you have clearly misunderstood the purpose of the WWW. It's a system for delivering documents that can link to one another. It is not about creating "UIs", like you mistakenly appear to believe.

A document is displayed to the user through a UI. Printing is on paper is a form of UI. Displaying it on a screen is a form of UI. By saying you don't need a UI, you're saying that you don't need the users to view your document.

When used properly, the exact same content should render perfectly fine on all sorts of devices with a wide range of capabilities and display media.

There's fine, and there's nice, which is pleasant to use. I guess your websites all look black & white (account for BW printers) with no images (account for Lynx users) and just Hn, b, u, i tags. And even those are bad. strong, em, quote should be used instead. Talk about living in the 20th cetury.

It's only when you misuse the WWW that you start running into the problems that you describe, and have to start attempting the horrible practices that you advocate. Indeed, different devices do need different UIs. The only tenable solution to that problem is to create separate native applications.

There are other options that work perfectly well. It's your right to choose not to use them of course. I respect that, contrary to you who disrespect what I do without actually knowing what I do for that matter. And you don't even want to know apparently.

All attempts at providing cross-platform UIs have failed,

For you.

regardless of who developed the technology, which platforms were targeted, and when it was attempted. Trust me, you won't succeed any better than they did, and will likely produce a result that is far worse.

Thanks for the tip. I have websites that work fine for years serving a smaller Logo to iPhones because, you know, they're slower devices with smaller screens. I guess that's a failure and my iPhone users should see a huge logo that takes forever to load. Or my desktop users should see a 100px by 50px logo. Because you said so.

Re:Questions (1)

Raumkraut (518382) | more than 3 years ago | (#37539356)

Please answer this question honestly: How old are you?

38. I don't see how it's relevant though. And I've been building website professionally for the last 15 years.

Old folks are often reticent to change their ways from what they learnt when they were a nipper, even if something better comes along. ;)

When used properly, the exact same content should render perfectly fine on all sorts of devices with a wide range of capabilities and display media.

There's fine, and there's nice, which is pleasant to use. I guess your websites all look black & white (account for BW printers) with no images (account for Lynx users) and just Hn, b, u, i tags. And even those are bad. strong, em, quote should be used instead. Talk about living in the 20th cetury.

He said "render perfectly fine", not "render exactly the same". Surely you've heard of "graceful degredation"? Though I suppose it may depend on one's understanding of "perfectly fine". ;)

But browser-sniffing is a bad idea. It's high-maintenance and prone to errors.
Though the best alternative I can think of is to use Javascript to switch stylesheets based on the display size/resolution, and have a sensible default. (And FWIW, I personally have javascript turned off by default - yes, I'm one of those people :) )

And the variable-logo-size should be fixed soon (now?), what with SVG finally getting some love from the browser vendors.

Re:Questions (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#37539248)

It's getting towards the end of 2011, and people are still advocating the use of user-agent sniffing? What the hell? The past 20 years of experience with this being a horrible approach hasn't convinced you to avoid it?

So you want to serve the same content to all UA's on all devices?

Just think about that for a bit.

Re:Questions (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538412)

You don't need to sniff the user agent. The html5 video tag has provisions for sites to supply multiple formats and allow the browser to select the compatible one.

Re:Questions (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538506)

A "user agent" is a client of the HTTP protocol. This is the terminology used in the RFCs. I never proposed to sniff the "User-agent" field of an http request.

Re:Questions (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538424)

Exactly. My Nokia C5 doesn't support HTML 5, but it does support flash. So all they've really done is abandon one set of affordable phones and added support for a different set of very expensive phones. Why not have some sort of hybrid implementation where they detect the capabilities of your browser and use whatever features are available and then fall back on that. It's a site for sharing powerpoint presentations. I'm pretty sure you could support 99% of powerpoint presentations with HTML 4, no javascript necessary.

Re:Questions (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538792)

What video? Or are you another person who thinks that HTML5 is the video tag and nothing more? Slideshare is a site for sharing slides. They don't share video, they share pages of formatted text. They have greater layout constraints than HTML traditionally supports, because they want the slides to appear in your browser just as they appeared on the screen.

Re:Questions (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37537752)

Apparently it's a "website for sharing PowerPoint presentations and other documents".

As to why anyone would care, I've no idea.

Re:Questions (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37537762)

It all smells like yet another slashvertisement to me...

"Look, look! HTML5! Come visit our site!
Please?"

Re:Questions (2)

dreamingwell (2472422) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538026)

You're correct. There's actually no HTML 5 in the new SlideShare site. It's just HTML 4 and Javascript. They are simply using the HTML 5 badge for marketing purposes.

Re:Questions (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538090)

"Look, look! HTML5! Come visit our site! Please?"

Actually, around here the site *is* used alot in IT, management and enterpreneurship-circles.

Some leading (geeky and idealistic) companies trying to push HTML5 into the web and show it's importance have hosted their presentations on the website. They are understandably "proud" they have made the implementation themselves and are now using "the latest open technology".

In that way 1) it is relevant 2) interesting as it's pro-active for HTML5 on a high-traffic site 3) and a bit of slashvertisement

Re:Questions (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538820)

A lot of conferences use SlideShare for publishing slides of presentations, rather than put .ppt files that no one on a non-Windows platform can read online. So, if you're interested in recent research, you've probably found yourself on SlideShare a few times. It doesn't really give you anything of value though. ESUG put my talk slides there, but the PDF version has a load of annotations and the version on SlideShare doesn't, so you're just using a Flash applet to do badly what most systems can do well in native code already...

Re:Questions (5, Informative)

samael (12612) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537768)

1) They host slide decks from presentations. I seem them being used by a wide variety of people, including lots of tech presentations.
2) Do you care about presentations, or HTML 5? If not, you wouldn't.
3) Because lots of us nerds care about HTML 5 and technical presentations.

Re:Questions (3, Informative)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537856)

And we hate flash and it's good to see these moves away from proprietary tech to open standards. The web is back.

Re:Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37537938)

Yes, I just long for the days of "This Site is Best Viewed with [insert particular browser here]" and crude chopppy animations that remind me of gif circa 1993. Please tell me more about the cpu hogging HTML5 banners that CANNOT BE BLOCKED.

Dream on dreamer, but most people will continue using Flash without even realizing it.

Re:Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538046)

They can be blocked, just like anything else can, in fact it's already possible with extensions out there now and has been pretty much for a very long time.

Re:Questions (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538276)

Thnhk along the line of "This is a website, so it is best viewed with a web browser".

As I said, the web is back.

Re:Questions (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538404)

Except the site still requires flash and d.oesn't use html5

More interesting question... (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537774)

What are the downsides or issues involved in building a general purpose html5 website today, for public consumption?

I'm not talking about a site which will use the canvas tag etc but something that should work fine on older browsers - how do older browsers react to doctypes developed after the browser was created?

I was looking at doing this for an upcoming project, specifically to use data annotations on tags (if you look at Facebook, they use non-standard data annotations on tags) but haven't come to a decision yet, as it hinges on what older browsers do.

Re:More interesting question... (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538206)

I assume this is the SlideShare in question: http://www.slideshare.net/

The front landing page looks excellent. The CSS hasn't loaded and the page looks like something from 1998 - excellent, have a bonus point. None of the images display either, but I'm guessing the CDN is blocked by my company's nanny software - it's no big deal, I used to block 3rd party images back in the days.

The first featured slideshow looks exactly the same as the landing page. No CSS and no images. If only all presentations could look like this!

IE7 on XP (because I'm forced to use it).

Re:More interesting question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538510)

You acknowledge that part of the site is filtered, yet still posted on how it rendered? The CSS could be blocked, too. Same for the featured slideshow. Your browser sucks, your OS sucks, and your company's filtering sucks... not slideshare.

Re:More interesting question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538698)

I think he wasn't saying that Slideshare sucked.
In fact he seems to be saying that the site looks better because it's simple unstyled black text on a white background.

The underlying message is more important though: because they're now using HTML5 instead of flash he can still access the information even though, as you said, his browser, OS and filtering all suck.

If they were using flash, he'd either be lucky that his combination of old software and corporate policies would still let him see that particular .swf, or he'd be looking at a blank page.

Re:Questions (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537792)

1) SlideShare is to presentations what youtube is to videos.

2) It depends. If you don't know what Slideshare is, and don't know the difference between html5 and flash, then definitively you should not care.

3) Someone submitted it and someone else promoted it to the front page. There's a faq here: http://slashdot.org/faq [slashdot.org]

Re:Questions (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537806)

2 and 3.

It has HTML5.
It says iPad.
It says iPhone.
It says Android.

You don't get it. Content is being delivered via markup language!!!1! This could revolutionize the print indus.....er.... wait, what?

Re:Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37537852)

In other news:
"Anonymous Coward has ditched Adobe Flash technology entirely, and rebuilt its website using the HTML5 markup language. This means that Anonymous Coward is now viewable on every kind of mobile device, from iPads to iPhones to Android devices and beyond."

Also: Aho hasnâ(TM)t rebuilt his page in a subset of the not-yet-stardardized (!) HTML5?

And in actual reality news: Not a single mobile browser supports HTML5.
i know, because I checked, and developed for it.

P.S.: Do not ask "Who the hell are X?". As that would be the very thing they were going for and would mean they succeded. :)

Re:Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538050)

you checked, found nothing and STILL developed for it?

Re:Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538182)

Maybe you live in an ideal world, most people have to do what their bosses/clients demand even if they do think it's a bad idea.

Re:Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538372)

None of them support HTML5 at all?

Are you sure?

I'm using HTML5's local storage on Android and iOS browsers. First link in google for a collection of those words:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4410987/html5-offline-storage-with-android-browsers

The support in WebKit based mobile browsers for some of the features in HTML5 is actually quite good.

Re:Questions (1)

shar303 (944843) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537878)

Agree; slashvertisments are showing up more and more on this site and its a real shame.

Looking at slideshare is not very encouraging- their site is covered with intrusive adverts and the comments indicate that the latest presentations don't seem to work on all browsers - with navigation buttons missing on the latest browsers.

I'm not sure that people will choose to use their service above http://prezi.com/ [prezi.com] the clear leaders in this field.

Re:Questions (2)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538406)

OK, yeah, it's a slashvertisement.

But I'm not affiliated with Slideshare, and it's handy to be notified of this news.

I've sort of put up with Slideshare because so many tech presentations (re: Drupal, PHP, and a bunch of other things) are on Slideshare.

The fact that they're HTML5 now gives me reason to explore it further.

Regarding Prezi, I don't know how it's the leader in this category. Slideshare's Alexa rank is an order of magnitude better than Prezi's, so more people are using Slideshare.

Re:Questions (1)

bazorg (911295) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537910)

1) Slideshare is kind of like flickr, but for presentation files instead of single photos. Useful for sharing that kind of file without requiring an installed client software. Good for SEO and to publish the presentations nearly in the same way they were made with your favourite office suite, instead of adapting them to HTML for publishing on the www.

2) YMMV

3) there's a significant amount of content there that will no longer require adobe flash. It's therefore more likely to be made available for ever and ever, instead of expiring if Adobe changes their corporate direction or something like that. Also a good example of what people think is a global trend, to replace flash with HTML 5.

Re:Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538216)

3) What makes it frontpage material for nerds?

4) What kind of nerd can't use a search engine to avoid questions like this?

Re:Questions (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538708)

5) What kind of nerd thinks those were any more than rhetorical questions to make a point?

Re:Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538452)

Since you obviously represent the majority of /. readers, I'll take precious time to answer your smug questions:

1) The most popular slide presentation hosting service on the Internet. Think the Flicker of PowerPoint. Used by millions of businesses, academia, etc.

2) Who the hell said you would? Must /. clear their postings with you prior to green-lighting them?

3) Yes. Easily. Much more so that 90% of /. recent crap.

Re:Questions (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538900)

Actually, about half of the replies to my comment alone haven't heard of it, or literally have JUST google'd it to find out. So it's not really that nerd-relevant, certainly not to have the article summary assume we all know what the hell it is.

Above that, I "know" about a lot of websites. Some of them still run HTML 1. We don't get an announcement about every one. Even for the popular ones - it doesn't mean they make front-page news no matter what they do. "Anydoc-to-PDF website moves their code to use SQL authentication!" is no more a headline than this article, no less technical, and no less relevant. In fact, it's probably more interesting.

And, to be honest, this is smack-bang in the middle of the "recent crap" on Slashdot that has almost nothing to do with technology (website uses HTML! WOOO!), are completely unverified or even obviously false (the article is firstly WRONG in that HTML5 isn't used at all - and not much could read it if it was - and Flash is still used in places, and there are a myriad problems with the site now that there weren't before) and nothing more than putting a company name into an article for the extra clicks. Rather than push traffic to the site, I now will associate that name forever with "cheap publicity hunters, and liars when it comes to anything technical". But that's *not* what I expect to see on Slashdot, and I'm clearly not alone (even most of the people who HAVE heard of it here class it as a slashvertisement).

Where's the interview with the technical guy about what problems they had, how hard it was to do, what sort of compatibility they see, what sort of demographic changes they've observed? Nothing, just a press-release of "we've done X" linked to from their own blog. Do we get a front-page story every time eBay change their web API, for instance? That would also be infinitely more interesting yet still incredibly tedious.

Anyone with the slightest non-technical interest in the actual site would be reading their blog anyway. Anyone with more technical interest than that will actually find zero details at all. Anyone who goes digging of their own accord will find that it's actually a complete lie. And everyone else has *nothing* interesting to read.

If the comments are more interesting, detailed, correct and insightful than the article, its summary or ANY of the links, it's time for the editors to move on. This was kind of my point in making a very facetious comment first of all.

Disabled rightclick and still no download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37537738)

Why? For no good reason then to annoy us I guess.

Re:Disabled rightclick and still no download (1)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537840)

Why? For no good reason then to annoy us I guess.

In my opinion, that's the whole point of sites like SlideShare. I mean, we can view presentations just fine without embedding them in a Flash file. And if we wanted to share them on the web, we could have used HTML like everybody else. And then they would actually work and be searchable, too.

So why do they embed the presentations in a Flash file? And why has it taken them so long to make them available as HTML? Probably exactly so that they can disable right-click and downloading - so that viewers have to keep coming to the site, and SlideShare can keep collecting ad revenue.

Re:Disabled rightclick and still no download (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37537874)

PROTIP: It's your browser. Go to Preferences -> Content -> Activate JavaScript -> Advanced... and set "Replace or disable the context menu" to off. Done. :)

Re:Disabled rightclick and still no download (1)

68kmac (471061) | more than 3 years ago | (#37539258)

Download is something that the uploader of the slides has to allow. And even then you need to be logged in to their site. FWIW, all my slide decks on slideshare are available for download.

Slidewho? (3, Funny)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537812)

Wake me up when youtube ditches Flash.

Re:Slidewho? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537862)

Wake me up when youtube ditches Flash.

Hello? Are you there? It's time to wake up. Type youtube.com on an iDevice to see it at work.

And what? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537882)

Have they ditched flash for their main general website? No. The only reason they don't use it for apple devices is they had no choice. Thats entirely different to making a voluntary decision to bin it completely. I don't think its me that needs to wake up to reality.

Re:And what? (2)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537914)

Youtube has had desktop HTML5 support (i.e. replaces flash) for at least a year, probably closer to two at this point. I've been using it for that period because my old N470 atom netbook (linux) struggles with full screen flash video, but runs HTML5 video acceptably in chrome. You can enable it somewhere deep inside the ever-changing youtube interface.

Re:And what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538028)

Re:And what? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538058)

How is that relevant in a discussion about ditching Flash? Unless youtube turns OFF flash support, make HTML5 the default, or even do something as basic as market HTML5 to the general population the thing we are still embedding into other pages is very much going to remain Flash.

Re:And what? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538436)

Actually the embed code is smarter than that. It embeds the most supported player your browser has. Uninstall Flash and check it out, if you have support for WebM or H.264. If not you will want to keep Flash around - which is still the most installed standard video player on the market.

Re:And what? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538064)

And isn't it wonderful? It only works with certain browsers and you have to install yet another plugin for the video codec which rather defeats the point of not using flash in the first place. Thanks, but I hope they stick with flash.

Re:And what? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538434)

Thing is, Youtube's video player is just about the only video player on the web that (almost) always works. The other ones do dumb things like stop loading when you pause it. (It should load up the entire video behind the scenes, and have it ready for you when you hit play.)

Re:And what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538320)

> my old N470 atom netbook (linux) struggles with full screen flash video, but runs HTML5 video acceptably in chrome

There is NO SUCH THING as "HTML5 Video".

It's all H264 or VP8 underneath. In other words, you're decoding exactly the same file.

Re:And what? (1)

Flipao (903929) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538258)

You do need to wake up to reality, If they ditched Flash the videos wouldn't play on older browsers, that would leave most users unable to access the site.

Not to mention the fact that HTML5 is still being developed, to drop Flash support overnight in favour of an incomplete technology is reckless at best.

People should really read up on these issues instead of parroting sermons preached by interested parties.

Re:Slidewho? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37537872)

Wake me up when youtube ditches Flash.

Knock knock, time to wake up.
Ever heard of webm videos ?

Re:Slidewho? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538066)

Webwhat? When I go to www.youtube.com I get flash videos.

I'm joining the parent back in bed and don't wake me for no reason again.

Re:Slidewho? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37537888)

Not sure if trolling. Youtube has a HTML5 player already, check out http://www.youtube.com/html5.

Re:Slidewho? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538080)

Oh what's that you had to type at the end of the www.youtube.com?

Supporting something new vs ditching something established are two very different things. When the DEFAULT is to serve up HTML5 then you can call the parent a troll.

Which bit of "ditches flash" didnt you understand? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538102)

They're still using it on their main site. If you have some insider information that they're going to get rid of flash fairly soon , please , fill us in!

Re:Slidewho? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538384)

Yes, but they haven't ditched Flash yet, have they? No. In fact, Flash is the primary/preferred player. The OP is correct, he never claimed that they don't offer an HTML5 player, only that they have yet to ditch Flash. I don't understand why all of these posters conveniently glossed over that fact.

I also don't understand why so many people are on a personal crusade to bring down Flash any chance they get. Is it all because of Steve Jobs' personal vendetta against Adobe? Is that where it comes from? I can definitely see why people would prefer HTML5 for certain applications, not having to deal with plugins is a major plus (even though Flash has well over 90% penetration on non-iOS devices... and the iOS exception is due to Jobs' refusal, not Adobe's fault), but there are a lot of features (mostly animation-related) that Flash offers that HTML5 doesn't support natively: motion tweening, key-framing, inverse kinematics, etc.

I agree with the consensus that Flash as a plugin is eventually going to fade into obsolescence, and that Adobe is most likely going to transition Flash into being an authoring tool for publishing HTML5 content (I guess with JavaScript libraries to cover the Flash features that aren't included natively with HTML5), but I just don't understand the vitriolic response a lot of people have whenever the conversation turns to Flash.

Re:Slidewho? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538870)

well you must be new here - if you want to get a rough sense of the infinite, you could do worse than consider the stupidity of the average apple fanboy.

the rest of the html5 lot are just suckers for lost causes. as it becomes increasingly clear they not getting anywhere they'll get more and more shrill but will fade in numbers.

Re:Slidewho? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538602)

Ditch it yourself: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/flashvideoreplacer/ :D

Really? (1)

aglider (2435074) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537820)

SlideShare is now viewable on every kind of mobile device

As long as they support that very flavor of HTML5 which, in turn, is still a draft!

Re:Really? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537870)

SlideShare is now viewable on every kind of mobile device

As long as they support that very flavor of HTML5 which, in turn, is still a draft!

It is still a draft. So? What does this mean? We shouldn't endorse it? Especially now that ALL browsers support it?

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538144)

They support a draft, so by definition they support vaporware until the draft becomes a standard.

Re:Really? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538378)

Vaporware is something that doesn't exist. HTML5 can be used TODAY on 60% of the browsers out there. And moreover it is really easy to make it downgrade gracefully on the 40% remaining IE8-

Re:Really? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538446)

The working group has stated that the draft is the standard and will be for ever more.

Re:Really? (1)

Flipao (903929) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538330)

SlideShare is now viewable on every kind of mobile device

As long as they support that very flavor of HTML5 which, in turn, is still a draft!

It is still a draft. So? What does this mean? We shouldn't endorse it? Especially now that ALL browsers support it?

You *could* endorse it, I wouldn't say *should* because changes in the spec might make the version supported by ALL browsers OBSOLETE overnight. We're years away from a finalized standard.

Re:Really? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538426)

What the fuck does anyone care about the standard? What we want is a technology with a sufficiently large install base so that it has a meaning to actually use it. HTML5 is this. AND it has a standard backing it up, which is an added bonus more or less guaranteeing a common set of features & API across all browsers

If they change the standard overnight (which will never happen, you know it) my code won't stop working... so why should I care? Why should anyone care? You really think IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari will all release a new version within month breaking all websites using their actual implementation?

Get real.

Re:Really? (2)

Flipao (903929) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538948)

What the fuck does anyone care about the standard?.

Pretty much stopped reading there, IE6 was developed by people who didn't give a fuck about standards and it set the web back at least half a decade. I'll leave you to figure out why they're necessary.

Re:Really? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37539190)

Ok, my sentence was wrong, and it should have read "What the fuck does anyone care about the draft status of the standard?"

My point was that the standard is there, it is followed by ALL browser manufacturers. The fact that it is a draft is brought up so often that it gets on my nerves. Apologies.

I'm still getting Flash (1)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537854)

When I go to the site, I'm still getting "Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations."

Re:I'm still getting Flash (1)

wooptoo (1075345) | more than 3 years ago | (#37539368)

Some older presentations were not converted (yet?).

Good News (1)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537864)

This is good news. No need to use Flash for presenting what is basically static pages with perhaps an animation here and there. Using HTML will make it more accessible. They mention mobile devices, but this will also help search engines and people with disabilities.

Re:Good News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538006)

Actually Flash has been at the forefront of making advanced web content accessible to people with disabilities.

See http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/

Also worth pointing out that slideshare crashed my browser (uses assistive technology) almost immediately.

This isn't HTML 5! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37537898)

Go look at the code for their demo on their front page. There's not one single big of "HTML 5" in it. It's just HTML 4 and Javascript.

Please stop perpetuating the myth that HTML 5 is actually useable or presently wide spread technology!

Re:This isn't HTML 5! (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538270)

Indeed, they're not even using the HTML 5 Doctype, it's XHTML: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> - and I don't see any HTML5 markup in the page (for instance, they use <div class="header"> instead of the semantically correct HTML5 <header> [html5doctor.com] ). What they mean is they dropped Flash video, they're clearly highly confused about what HTML5 actually is.

Re:This isn't HTML 5! (1)

dreamingwell (2472422) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538294)

They're not even using the canvas tag; which is the most widely supported and first-out-of-the-gate html 5 tag.

Re:This isn't HTML 5! (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538640)

Indeed, they're not even using the HTML 5 Doctype, it's XHTML: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

Sadly, it's not quite that simple. That doctype tag thinger is what the HTML5 spec calls an "obsolete permitted DOCTYPE string" [w3.org] for HTML5 documents. Obviously, I object to that; I want to use, say, XHTML 1.0 and not any worse usurper "standard", and the former is not "obsolete" except by plan [wikipedia.org] .

and I don't see any HTML5 markup in the page (for instance, they use

instead of the semantically correct HTML5 <header>).

I don't think that not using new "HTML5" tags makes a doc non-HTML5, but they say div [w3.org] * is best used "when no other element is suitable" so your complaint seems about right.

What they mean is they dropped Flash video, they're clearly highly confused about what HTML5 actually is.

Hakuna matata; HTML5 seems confused about what HTML5 actually is sometimes. I probably used HTML5 by accident when I prayed to the gods for its slow, painful death.

*It took me a few minutes to check that div was even part of HTML5. Damn its badly written Elements section [w3.org] .

Re:This isn't HTML 5! (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538970)

Valid points all, and it's all indicative of what a hodge-podge mess of a "standard" HTML5 is. I guess my point was more that they could have done at least the bare minimum in terms of adding some of the Shiny New Markup to the page. Instead this is all laid out in the trusty old div element and looks probably identical to how they'd have coded it even if they were coding specifically for XHTML (and even then it has a lot of validation errors). In short, definite marketing exercise, I can only hope their developers weren't complicit and at least have the good grace to cringe when the marketing team talk about their HTML5 site :)

wat (1)

Catnaps (2044938) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538044)

Hyper Text Markup Language 5 Markup Language! Yeah!

Excuse me, I need to go order me some of that RAM memory stuff.

Re:wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538532)

don't forget your PIN number!

Can't hardly wait till... (2)

wjcofkc (964165) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538132)

I can post "Ding Dong the witch is dead. Which old witch? The proprietary cpu eating battery draining witch!"
Sooner or later anyway...

Re:Can't hardly wait till... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538200)

er that should be **can** hardly wait.

oh and if you're referring to the witch of the west (steve jobs) she is very much on her last legs.

I tried it out (1)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 3 years ago | (#37538232)

Well, I just signed up (yay slashvertisement!) and uploaded a very simple powerpoint slide.

Result: Running chrome I still see the slide being run on Flash. I have looked around and found no immediate way of activating the HTML5 mode, even if I can see the HTML5 presentations in the slideshare frontpage just fine.

Maybe it runs on flash only if it detects a flash plugin, but why tout the HTML5 mode this way if they are going to default to flash anyway?

fp 7fa6orz (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37538520)

aoneR common goal -

It was time.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37539322)

I use it for research purposes and the installation of flash was inevitable. I can fortunately soon view SlideShare presentations without this piece of proprietary code.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?