So I started writing something about how we were supposed to get away from the awfulness of flash, and it's stupidities like long loading screens, with CSS3 and HTML5. But I viewed the source and this is flash. Well the loading screen is. You see it's currently downloaded 4Mb across 2 .swf files and it's only about... a third of the way through, although it's hard to tell on the "fill in the word" progress bar.
My third-world 2Mbit internet connection doesn't seem to be up to scratch. At least my web browser is if the browser checking code has already run. This is like c2001 except then we did "if (ie) {} else if (ns) { }"
I hate to complain without actually having seen the subject matter, but flash, loading screens and "if (chrome) else { fail }" is harking back to a bad past.
Edit: I think the download died at just under 5 Mb. I guess my 2Mb internet really isn't up to scratch.
a message like that is a tipoff that what you're seeing was made by amateurs, just be thankful they gave you the warning and move on to things worth your time
yeah, going back to that now. HTML5 fanciness has replaced animated .gifs, too. And modal dialogs have replaced popups.
[rant]seriously, why do a third of the sites linked to HN open up with a meaningless modal dialog / popup asking me to join a mailing list or fill in a survey. I'd fill in a survey if you'd actually let me visit your site to see what the survey questions are about![/rant]
User-agents can be abolished once all browsers are created equal; same HTML standards support, same performance. Pretty sure it only works in Chrome because it has good support for the latest HTML technologies, good performance, and good developer tools.
That's because when you load it in Firefox it will redirect you to another URL. Then you copy/paste that in Chrome and you see the same message. I hate when websites do this...
Quite funny. I attempted to load this in Chrome and I still get 'This site is running only on the world's best browser' with a link to download, ironically, Chrome.
Took a while to load but it scroll surprisingly smoothly. The sign-up button takes me to a wikipedia page about contextual advertising. Is that intentional?
I don't understand how the number of people who viewed this yesterday goes up. Shouldn't that be a fixed metric? If it's just a demo, maybe some better number to demo would be better.
What irks is that it tells you "scroll down to proceed" but then you can't scroll back up and control what's going on. Why not keep the page fixed and have the content within in scrolling? You know, like in a video?
Sites that do autodetect and ban access on the result are BAD BAD BAD. You can detect them and add a banner to inform the user the site might not work, and even explain why.
Runs fine in Arch Chrome... though Contad Presents (the first bit) is centered based on window height. I didn't even see it until I made my Chrome window wider.
My third-world 2Mbit internet connection doesn't seem to be up to scratch. At least my web browser is if the browser checking code has already run. This is like c2001 except then we did "if (ie) {} else if (ns) { }"
I hate to complain without actually having seen the subject matter, but flash, loading screens and "if (chrome) else { fail }" is harking back to a bad past.
Edit: I think the download died at just under 5 Mb. I guess my 2Mb internet really isn't up to scratch.