Thanks -
this strangely makes using the computer a more soothing experience. Tried it for a few minutes, when I turned the color back on, it seemed suddenly very loud.
It is not a dumb question, but the answer is almost certainly not.
It wouldn't be that difficult to design a computer to process graphics a lot faster in greyscale (you need to use one byte for the color and one for the alpha) since each pixel requires less computation.
In practice if your graphic card only worked in greyscale, it wouldn't be worth the cost of development and so nobody would do it.
If anything, all the author expresses is the disappointment of his own expectations while not adding anything constructive.
Looking at the screenshots what he wants to achieve is perfectly doable cross browser but as per the author admission he's not much of a front-end guy.
People should try to understand that the need for the capabilities of Flash and Flash itself are being lopped together in a single, partisan viewpoint. Regretfully.
There is a need for crazy, highly interactive studio/movie sites, webcam support on the web, cross-browser reliability, fast drawing for animation and games, cross-browser 3D, audio API. Saying that these features will come one day is not an answer. "You don't need those features because..." is also not an answer. The OP's points are no more constructive that those who have answers like these against Flash.
Criticizing HTML5 means you are pro-Flash. Which means you are wrong and all of your points are invalid. Even if you're not pro-Flash.
> I would have thought that criticising HTML5 and providing valid reasoning means you think negatively about HTML5
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Not offering criticism isn't supportive, it's religious. Being willfully blind to huge holes in necessary support won't make HTML5 better.
> The problem is, the author hasn't backed up anything.
It's not a research paper for a scientific discovery. It's an opinion on the state of HTML5. The OP doesn't need to back it up since proof of his points are rampantly apparent and readily available, cognitive dissonance excluded.
If you want HTML5 to get better, you should ask that it is better. Turning a blind eye is just foolish.
That's his point..if someone can't write and position two characters of text and have it be cross platform easily, the HTML platform itself has failed.
I had a similar thought like the author recently. Flash could have been awesome with a smaller runtime, 3D sooner, progressive rendering of content (text and images getting loaded in like in the browser instead of loading bars) Who would still use HTML? There would be no upside at all, Flash has always had better tools.
Despite being one of the first true ubiquitous computing platforms, becoming the main format of communication for the planet, HTML(s/the web) failed because someone couldnt read a CSS tutorial?
The authors example is terrible, that is an easy layout to do crossbrowser, HTML and CSS do have massive deficiencies in easily creating layouts, but so do most GUI toolkits, and compared to the other factors involved in the success of the web, fiddling around with css a little longer is a price well worth paying, for the majority at least
I agree, I have no idea why he can't center content horizontally unless he's making a mistake.
However, those deficiencies you mentioned are only "well worth it" because it's our only option. It's this complacent attitude that helped generate a need for a plug-in. HTML and CSS are still tedious to use and often times requires hacks to work in specific browsers. Why? We shouldn't need a mess of frameworks on top of frameworks to fix these "massive deficiencies", it's simply not good enough.
I deal with HTML and CSS everyday so I'm probably biased but for me all these cross-browser compatibility problems related to rendering stuff are grossly exaggerated. Aside from IE6 (which, I believe, should not be supported anymore) supporting everything else is relatively easy. IE7 usually needs a couple of "zoom: 100%" here and there; IE8 handles CSS2 quite nicely (it passed Acid 2 after all); IE9 is on the same level as Firefox 3.6 - which is quite great.
CSS3 stuff is a bit tricky sometimes, especially if you're going for a pixel-perfect cross-browser compatibility. However, it's hard to expect that older browsers would support technology from the future. Flash 8 don't support Flash 11 features either. Still, in browsers the new stuff could be quite easily 'emulated' with filters, JS or ready-made solutions (PIE CSS), etc.
Latest Firefox, Opera, Safari, Chrome and IE10 - the bunch that supports both HTML5 and CSS3 from the start - are totally painless. That's the "HTML5 nirvana", IMHO. To be honest, breaking the compatibility between these the way the author did is quite an achievement - I really would like to see his code. Probably a quick and simple CSS Reset would solve these issues. Author's mistake is more probable though.
Who would still use HTML? There would be no upside at all, Flash has always had better tools.
No upside at all? Open standards, semantic code, SEO optimization, separation of presentation and content, ability to look into the source code, ability to alter the content and/or visuals by user, better printing support, userscripts, ad blocking,... Just to mention a few.
Anyway, no matter how good Flash could have become it would always be only a plug-in. A third-party injection, not an integral part of the web - and as such it always was doomed in the long term perspective. Relaying on plugins is like - excuse an over-the-top metaphor - having nitro system in a family car. It's exciting for a while, but nowhere near an experience of having a real supercar. HTML5, in it's current state, is not yet a Ferrari but it has way bigger chance to become one than Flash (or Silverlight, or anything) ever had.
Even more important : HOW does this get to the first two results in the first place, with only 3 comments and 20 points ? Is it enough for 20 of the OP's friends to upvote a story for it to get to the top ? Not hating, just curious to know.
The first three images in the screenshots work as a good three panel joke.
But yep, I agree - the author shouldn't necessarily try to start a debate without offering specific use cases and failures. Far too much conjecture IMO.
