4 ms·

How impressed are you now? https://html5test.com/results/desktop.html https://html5test.com/results/desktop.html

sp332 11y ago
It's objectively the best they've ever made, as GP stated. Here's a comparison https://html5test.com/compare/browser/ie-Edge/firefox-38/chrome-43.html https://html5test.com/compare/browser/ie-Edge/firefox-38/chr...
bzbarsky 11y ago
html5test has some problems: 1) The set of functionality it tests is pretty arbitrary. Some of the things it tests are basically single-browser-vendor with other browsers having clearly said they have no plans to implement them. 2) The point values it assigns to the things it tests are totally arbitrary. So you can implement various useful things but have fewer points than one less useful thing. 3) Its tests are easily gameable (and commonly gamed by various mobile browsers, though less often by IE/Chrome/Firefox/Safari). 4) Some of its tests are just buggy. E.g. it claims that a Firefox nightly doesn't support "script execution events", whereas in fact Firefox supports them just fine. It's just that the way the test runs its test script is relying on a browser bug that got fixed, so the script doesn't run at all. So I would take any claims based on its summary score as pretty much meaningless. Results for specific things one cares about can still be meaningful, as long as you keep #3 and #4 in mind.
- justwannasing 11y ago
  In the 11 years I've been a web developer, there is not a test where someone disses it for all the reasons you give, no matter who created it, including caniuse.com. However, I would never take anything you say, Boris, with a grain of salt. Especially since, about 8 years ago, you tried to recruit me to work on Firefox ;)
  - bzbarsky 11y ago
    Oh, sure. These are not problems unique to html5test.com. Pretty much anything that claims to boil down the quality of a browser or rendering engine to a single number will suffer from problems #1 and #2. As for #3 and #4, writing a test not susceptible to gaming is _hard_, and bugs happen. It's just that people like to forget all this and treat the numbers they get as revelation from on high. Sort of cargo-cult quality measurement.

sp332 11y ago

It's objectively the best they've ever made, as GP stated. Here's a comparison https://html5test.com/compare/browser/ie-Edge/firefox-38/chrome-43.html https://html5test.com/compare/browser/ie-Edge/firefox-38/chr...

bzbarsky 11y ago

html5test has some problems: 1) The set of functionality it tests is pretty arbitrary. Some of the things it tests are basically single-browser-vendor with other browsers having clearly said they have no plans to implement them. 2) The point values it assigns to the things it tests are totally arbitrary. So you can implement various useful things but have fewer points than one less useful thing. 3) Its tests are easily gameable (and commonly gamed by various mobile browsers, though less often by IE/Chrome/Firefox/Safari). 4) Some of its tests are just buggy. E.g. it claims that a Firefox nightly doesn't support "script execution events", whereas in fact Firefox supports them just fine. It's just that the way the test runs its test script is relying on a browser bug that got fixed, so the script doesn't run at all. So I would take any claims based on its summary score as pretty much meaningless. Results for specific things one cares about can still be meaningful, as long as you keep #3 and #4 in mind.

justwannasing 11y ago
In the 11 years I've been a web developer, there is not a test where someone disses it for all the reasons you give, no matter who created it, including caniuse.com. However, I would never take anything you say, Boris, with a grain of salt. Especially since, about 8 years ago, you tried to recruit me to work on Firefox ;)
- bzbarsky 11y ago
  Oh, sure. These are not problems unique to html5test.com. Pretty much anything that claims to boil down the quality of a browser or rendering engine to a single number will suffer from problems #1 and #2. As for #3 and #4, writing a test not susceptible to gaming is _hard_, and bugs happen. It's just that people like to forget all this and treat the numbers they get as revelation from on high. Sort of cargo-cult quality measurement.