It's really cool.
Care to explain why do you have http://mbostock.github.com/d3/d3.v2.min.js in header that has only one line - links to actual d3 at http://d3js.org/d3.v2.min.js?
Am I missing some reasoning behind this? It doesn't seem very reasonable. Adds two unnecesary hops to two different domains? If you dont want to host d3 why not just reference it directly in header from d3js.org?
Edit: Oh, and how you distort svg to make it look spherical while dragging? This is very cool.
The two are not mutually exclusive as you seem to imply.
> Your users do not NEED to be educated by you.
I think educating clients and users is actually crucial.
For a lot of users browser was conscious choice, but there is big group that don't even know that there are different/newer browsers.
First group can ignore advice but second group might benefit a lot.
>It is not your business what browser they use.
It absolutely is.
Silly car metaphor: I'm taking my car to a service station. I expect mechanic to tell me that oil I'm using is not the optimal one. Whether or not I take his advice is my business. But informing me about substandard oil is very much his business.
Also - If all of my users used modern browsers, I could save money by not spending time on ensuring my site performs well on old buggy browsers.
I agree with designer's responsibility to maximize "findability" of content - however it's simply impossible to design for every single resolution and size of window. Until now, at least scrollbar was always there, no matter what resolution (if content was bigger), indicating more content.
I agree it's to soon to predict effects of that change, and I'm not trying to do that. I'm just trying to understand what would be the benefits/reasoning behind the decision to change standard GUI element that already worked well.
I highly doubt that would be a factor in that decision.
1920x1080 is native resolution only for iMac 21.5-inch and Mac Book Pro 17-inch(1920 by 1200) so it probably isn't the most widely used resolution among apple users.
And most of 960 grid layouts actually use 940px for content (20 pixels are left for margins) - so that would fit with scrollbars anyway...
Also, even if you would have two sites using full 960px, you would still have to align windows with pixel perfect precision not to cut anything out.
There was a thread (AMA) with Firefox guys on reddit last week, and continuous/fast release cycle is one of things that they want to focus on now. They want to start using it this year.
> > It's called bait and switch.
> Not really. If anything, it's the eventual use of market power for profiteering.
Personally I think "bait and switch" fits here correctly.
> > But it would become another closed de facto standard, just like IE6.
> Huh? IE6 is a browser not a standard.
I don't think that you understand what "de facto standard" means. Or maybe you understand, but choose to ignore it to make bullshit argument.
> > This is comparing apples and oranges. Flash is a plugin,
> This is splitting hairs and a straw man.
Really? I thought we are talking here about video codecs not Flash. Please stick to meritum. Dont use red herring. Why do you insist to bring Flash to discussion about two video codecs?
>WRONG. Bizarrely wrong in fact since we're arguing about the HTML5 container for video and supported codecs. Flash isn't involved.
Oh so now you insist that Flash isn't involved in this discussion?
> This isn't vapourware either. Modern browsers already support it.
But old browser are still here for at least couple years. I still have to deal with people using IE6 - 10 years after original release. One of the ways, for people building websites, to deal with old browser is to use Flash for certain tasks. So some websites still require Flash as they need to deal with this type of users. But let's not divert this discussion to Flash as it's NOT what we are talking about.
> If there are two dominant standards, sites will be faced with a choice: double-encode everything or pick one. Many have already picked H.264. What's more likely? Double-encoding or simply delivering H.264 to Chrome via a Flash (rather than HTML5) container?
True, there will be probably double encoding involved, but most likely only for certain period of time, the time of transition. Once WebM will gain popularity, double encoding will end, as majority of providers will chose free format.
And google just took first steps to popularize WebM.
> If anything, this move prolongs the existence of Flash.
Here we go again. You bring Flash to discussion whenever you don't have another argument. But if you insist - there is still massive hole in your logic: "> What's more likely? Double-encoding or simply delivering H.264 to Chrome via a Flash (rather than HTML5) container?" I don't know if you realize but major players (youtube, vimeo, etc.) in web video double-encode at least since a year - at least to VP6 and h.264.
But there is even bigger hole in your logic: "...simply delivering H.264 to Chrome via a Flash..." - you just contradicted yourself by saying that it's in fact h.264 that keeps Flash alive (that you hate so much). If we remove h.264 and propagate WebM, we will remove flash as a fallback dependency.
> > Just because a format is widespread offline does not mean that it is suitable for use on the web.
> Is the author really suggesting H.264 a) isn't widespread on the Web and/or b) isn't suitable for use on the Web? Really?
a) No, not really. You're putting YOUR words in original author's mouth. He said that it's widespread offline. He didn't said anything about it's web share. Your biased point of view implied this.
b) Yes, he meant that, but you skipped context of the article. Article is in context of OPEN web, and in that context H.264 isn't suitable.
> If the author thinks this move will displace H.264 they are sadly mistaken. For one, the license fees for using H.264 are negligible for the largest players.
License fees for large players might be negligible but if another - free - format will become widespread enough they will simply switch to that free one, as there will be no reason to pay that fees. And as most big players are public companies, or parts of public companies, they have obligation to shareholders to maximize profits which is easy if you can cut costs.
> For another, there is an enormous installed base of devices with hardware H.264 decoding. Hundreds of millions in fact, most notably the various Apple iDevices.
And that step by Google is an attempt to change it. And given time it will change. First new devices will incorporate hardware encoding of WebM along with h.264. Later, given time they will abandon h.264. You think in categories of months. Big players think in years. Also, I remember people using similar argument against Android, and now android sells biggest number of smartphones.
> These provide a compelling use for the continued use of H.264 in the long term.
And to force world to use paid format for long term.
> Yes but double the processing and double the storage are real issues.
But adoption of WebM will not change situation. We encode to multiple formats whether WebM is here or not. And long term view is that widespread adoption of WebM might actually end that and end licensing fees. So double savings.
> What benefits are those exactly? At least for now the user experience, HTML5 video is still playing catch up to Flash video in terms of user experience.
So now you're arguing that there are no benefits of html5 video? What about the benefit of knowing that user of certain browser definitely have support for your video without requirement of using plugins, which might or might not be there? Honestly, are you trying that hard to shoot yourself in the foot, or are you just picking arguments when they are suitable to prove your point, whatever it is.
> HTML5 video is still playing catch up to Flash video in terms of user experience.
Are you now in favor of using flash instead html5 video? Sure html5 video is playing catch up with flash, but it's playing catchup regardless we use h.264 or WebM. And again, given time html5 video might catch up. If it will not than we will still use flash regardless if dominant codec will be h.264 or WebM.
> Worst case for IE is still about ~50%. That still makes it the single largest browser.
> I can't imagine it [Safari] getting WebM support anytime soon.
Apple might change their mind anytime if there will be money or pressure involved. Just like they finally removed ban on flash apps from appstore.
> By definition, not giving someone a choice takes away choices.
But you will have a choice. If you like h.264 you can install plugin, if you like Flash you will have Flash, and if you like WebM you will have WebM.
> All of the arguments for this move seem to be focused on the long term. That's fine but in the short term it will unarguably cause users and sites headaches.
Ah, sorry, I see you actually understand that it's not overnight change that they play in here. Sorry again your opinions above were worded (or understood by me) like you didn't understand that.
> That's fine but in the short term it will unarguably cause users and sites headaches.
That's true, but we are already in times of transition from Flash to html5 video, so that's the best time to make strategic moves like that.
> At best, the author's argument descends to "two wrongs make a right".
> Note: I'm saying arguing in favour of Flash. In fact, I consider the lack of Flash on my iDevices to be a feature rather than a limitation.
I don't really understand what you are trying to imply here.
> Ironically this moves will likely prolong Flash and slow the adoption of HTML5 as a result.
As I stated many times above I don't think you're right about that. In fact I think opposite - keeping h.264 is prolonging flash and slowing adoption of HTML5.
Interestingly, screenshots cover adsense after you click loupe icon to activate them. http://i.imgur.com/IpuYY.png I guess this will probably change soon.
