5 ms·

Works on Chrome only. Reminds me of the good old "Best Viewed in Internet Explorer (click here to download)" days.

by logn 14y ago

bzbarsky 14y ago
And the silliest part is that other browsers support the parts of this that are needed (accelerometers and websocket).
mtgx 14y ago
It's an "experiment", which means it could be using some of the latest and cutting edge HTML5 specs. Chrome happens to be very good at supporting the latest specs. It's significantly more ahead than Firefox, and it's way, way, way ahead even than the latest version of IE. So if an "experiment" meant to use the latest technologies happens to "only work in Chrome", don't blame Chrome for implementing the specs much faster than anyone else, and then developers taking advantage of them. Blame IE and others for not implementing HTML5 specs fast enough. Unlike in the IE6 age where Microsoft did not follow the HTML standards, and made up their own new technologies, other browsers couldn't have implemented them even if they wanted to. In this case, if IE can't play this experiment, it just means it will be able to play it after one or two other major releases, once they get off their asses and get around to supporting the specs Chrome is support today. It doesn't mean they will never be able to support them (again, unlike with IE's tech in the "IE6 age").
- azakai 14y ago
  > It's an "experiment", which means it could be using some of the latest and cutting edge HTML5 specs. That's fair. > Chrome happens to be very good at supporting the latest specs. It's significantly more ahead than Firefox, and it's way, way, way ahead even than the latest version of IE. That's not accurate. Chrome is ahead in some areas, but behind in others. But the bigger point is that the site says > "We're sorry, but World Wide Maze is an experiment that was designed with the browser Google Chrome in mind." If it said "with modern HTML5 in mind", that would be fine. But it says it was designed for Chrome, not for standards.
  - Recoil42 14y ago
    >Chrome is ahead in some areas, but behind in others. Correct, but as a whole, it's significantly more ahead than Firefox, and it's way, way, way ahead than even the latest version of IE. What you said doesn't contradict that point.
    - azakai 14y ago
      I don't agree that it is "significantly more ahead than Firefox" - can you back that up? There is a long list of features that each of those browsers has, that the other does not. As for IE, I don't run Windows, so I know less about it.
      - Retric 14y ago
        Chrome 463, Firefox 393 that's a fairly large gap IMO. http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html
        azakai 14y ago
        The numbers there are highly arbitrary - some things have large subcategories and so a big final number, while huge features like WebGL have few subcategories and a small final number. The numbers there are just an arbitrary decision by, AFAICT, one person. Edit: Also, that does not include JS features at all. The modern web isn't just HTML ;)
      - unconed 14y ago
        Firefox: * No CSS shaders * CSS 3D is still very buggy (http://acko.net/#force3d http://acko.net/#force3d) despite the support being over a year old now. Also renders without anti-aliasing, which makes it really ugly. * Both Firebug and the built-in inspector seriously lack compared to Chrome's dev tools which has a per-frame timeline, profiler, etc. Instead they added the rather pointless 3D tilt view of the DOM which doesn't show you the actual DOM layers (unlike this 5 minute CSS 3D hack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-oQj9Y9I6I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-oQj9Y9I6I) and hence is just a misleading gimmick. * No in-browser code editing/saving * No Web Audio API * No desktop notifications * No MP3, no AAC, no H.264 support (on OSX anyway), the three most common audio and video codecs. * No date/time picker, no color picker, no number range field Yeah, I know there are reasons behind this, but still, the picture is heavily skewed in Chrome's favor As for IE... CSS 3D support is incomplete (no nesting), its dev tools are pretty crap, and they seem to be actively ignoring standards like WebGL and pushing their own spec for WebRTC.
- derleth 14y ago
  > It's an "experiment", which means it could be using some of the latest and cutting edge HTML5 specs. It uses WebGL. Firefox has WebGL. This isn't really an excuse. The only reason to only support Chrome is to advertise Chrome. This isn't a tech demo, it's an ad.
- cpeterso 14y ago
  Which HTML5 features used by this demo are not supported by Firefox?

Works on Chrome only. Reminds me of the good old "Best Viewed in Internet Explorer (click here to download)" days.

by logn 14y ago

Works on Chrome only. Reminds me of the good old "Best Viewed in Internet Explorer (click here to download)" days.

bzbarsky 14y ago

And the silliest part is that other browsers support the parts of this that are needed (accelerometers and websocket).

mtgx 14y ago

It's an "experiment", which means it could be using some of the latest and cutting edge HTML5 specs. Chrome happens to be very good at supporting the latest specs. It's significantly more ahead than Firefox, and it's way, way, way ahead even than the latest version of IE. So if an "experiment" meant to use the latest technologies happens to "only work in Chrome", don't blame Chrome for implementing the specs much faster than anyone else, and then developers taking advantage of them. Blame IE and others for not implementing HTML5 specs fast enough. Unlike in the IE6 age where Microsoft did not follow the HTML standards, and made up their own new technologies, other browsers couldn't have implemented them even if they wanted to. In this case, if IE can't play this experiment, it just means it will be able to play it after one or two other major releases, once they get off their asses and get around to supporting the specs Chrome is support today. It doesn't mean they will never be able to support them (again, unlike with IE's tech in the "IE6 age").

azakai 14y ago
> It's an "experiment", which means it could be using some of the latest and cutting edge HTML5 specs. That's fair. > Chrome happens to be very good at supporting the latest specs. It's significantly more ahead than Firefox, and it's way, way, way ahead even than the latest version of IE. That's not accurate. Chrome is ahead in some areas, but behind in others. But the bigger point is that the site says > "We're sorry, but World Wide Maze is an experiment that was designed with the browser Google Chrome in mind." If it said "with modern HTML5 in mind", that would be fine. But it says it was designed for Chrome, not for standards.
- Recoil42 14y ago
  >Chrome is ahead in some areas, but behind in others. Correct, but as a whole, it's significantly more ahead than Firefox, and it's way, way, way ahead than even the latest version of IE. What you said doesn't contradict that point.
  - azakai 14y ago
    I don't agree that it is "significantly more ahead than Firefox" - can you back that up? There is a long list of features that each of those browsers has, that the other does not. As for IE, I don't run Windows, so I know less about it.
    - Retric 14y ago
      Chrome 463, Firefox 393 that's a fairly large gap IMO. http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html
      - azakai 14y ago
        The numbers there are highly arbitrary - some things have large subcategories and so a big final number, while huge features like WebGL have few subcategories and a small final number. The numbers there are just an arbitrary decision by, AFAICT, one person. Edit: Also, that does not include JS features at all. The modern web isn't just HTML ;)
    - unconed 14y ago
      Firefox: * No CSS shaders * CSS 3D is still very buggy (http://acko.net/#force3d http://acko.net/#force3d) despite the support being over a year old now. Also renders without anti-aliasing, which makes it really ugly. * Both Firebug and the built-in inspector seriously lack compared to Chrome's dev tools which has a per-frame timeline, profiler, etc. Instead they added the rather pointless 3D tilt view of the DOM which doesn't show you the actual DOM layers (unlike this 5 minute CSS 3D hack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-oQj9Y9I6I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-oQj9Y9I6I) and hence is just a misleading gimmick. * No in-browser code editing/saving * No Web Audio API * No desktop notifications * No MP3, no AAC, no H.264 support (on OSX anyway), the three most common audio and video codecs. * No date/time picker, no color picker, no number range field Yeah, I know there are reasons behind this, but still, the picture is heavily skewed in Chrome's favor As for IE... CSS 3D support is incomplete (no nesting), its dev tools are pretty crap, and they seem to be actively ignoring standards like WebGL and pushing their own spec for WebRTC.
derleth 14y ago
> It's an "experiment", which means it could be using some of the latest and cutting edge HTML5 specs. It uses WebGL. Firefox has WebGL. This isn't really an excuse. The only reason to only support Chrome is to advertise Chrome. This isn't a tech demo, it's an ad.
cpeterso 14y ago
Which HTML5 features used by this demo are not supported by Firefox?