6 ms·
This is just a sample of what is possible. There will always be people who use the wrong tool for the job, but that is not a reason to dismiss this.
by moldycricket 13y ago
This is just a sample of what is possible. There will always be people who use the wrong tool for the job, but that is not a reason to dismiss this.
- nfoz 13y agoIt's a reason to proclaim that the people deciding on web standards are doing a horrible job. Scripting should be removed from the web, not made ever more powerful....
- terabytest 13y agoThat to me sounds like you're saying cars would be better off without wheels.
- untog 13y agoYeah, god, I long for the days before Google Maps, too. Who needs that slick slippy interface when you can endlessly click arrows at the corner of a static image?
- djm_ 13y agoAh, true nostalgia. Making the click, waiting for the image to download over 56k..only to realise you've loaded the wrong tile. If anyone wants to recreate the experience, Streetmap.co.uk [1] is still going (somehow). [1] http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=531500&y=181500&z=120&sv=london&st=3&tl=Map+of+London,+City+of+London.+[City/Town/Village]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=531500&y=181500&z=120&s...
- randomdata 13y agoIt is a long term evolution. Eventually, application developers will build directly atop the accelerated graphics layers, freeing the browser to be just a basic virtual machine, and leaving HTML rendering to be just another app built atop that machine. But these things take time and there is a lot of legacy cruft that needs to work in the meantime.
- Wilya 13y agoJust like native apps, except the end-user no longer has control over anything. I can't wait.
- randomdata 13y agoCare to elaborate? That is not the direction I pictured at all. The open standards of the web should have the opposite effect, allowing anyone to build a computer that can run the major software offerings of the time. I do not see it really any different to how web applications are developed today, just throwing out the needless overhead. If your concerns are to be realized, it has probably already happened a long time ago.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 13y agoWhy people keep saying this kind of stuff? For one, whatever Tim Berner's Lee envisoned, the web is not the simple mostly textual medium it was in 1993. Get over it. Second, for people to love reading text on the web, there was never a better time than the present. Lots of long form text by bloggers and content providers like Medium etc, combined with a widespread interest in improved readability and good typography. Plus, the fashion/preference for "minimalist" designs also helps putting emphasis on the content, even better than some 1997 site with animated gifs and black text on grey.
- cousin_it 13y agoThe universal reply to "get over it" is "if it's a problem for me, then it's a problem". Are you sure there's no grain of truth in the complaints about today's dynamic Web? How about this critique, which is hopefully more articulate? http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2011-November/033914.html http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2011-Nov...
- untog 13y agoAre you sure there's no grain of truth in the complaints about today's dynamic Web? Of course there are. But no-one has really articulated an alternative vision. That post certainly doesn't.
- mistercow 13y agoSuppose that's what they did with HTML5. What would happen then? Nobody would use it. Proprietary solutions to do what WebGL and other HTML5 features do would pop up, and people would use those. Instead, what we've got is a situation where you can actually turn off Flash and use the majority of websites without any degradation.
- chasing 13y agoWho's dismissing? I love it -- and this example looks great.