It works in Chrome latest, but it is a bit laggy on what should be powerful and fairly modern laptop (Core i5, Windows Rating 5.9). I guess it's about 10 fps away from what I would consider "sufficiently" smooth, but maybe that goes more along the lines of showing what people now have come to expect of the web rather than being a shortcoming of HTML/JS-solutions.
As for this thread, today I learned that MSIE9 is actually released. Time to get updating :)
That is really awesome - but one thing (which is just an observation, not a complaint) I've noticed with all the CSS3 super-cool demos like this is that everything is very "linear". All the animation stuff happens in straight lines or repeating patterns (of circles, in the demo) which gives the page a certain feel.
I wonder if it's the start of an effect that will eventually be used to carbon-date websites... "Ah look at this specimen - table based layout, and JavaScript littered with variable names beginning with "mm_" from the late Dreamweaver era. Oooh, now look here... completely linear animations... my guess is it's early 2011! And in such condition!"
Not all the transitions are linear. In the cases where they are, it's obviously a design choice.
It might be that because they're moving fast that you perceive it that way. But most of the animations have easing. Ease in and out on almost all the animation styles.
That's interesting... I don't know if it's possible to animate directly on a bezier curve, though that'd be an extremely-useful thing to be able to do.
It looks like all the animatable properties just have ease-in / out timing, and go from A to B. Given that, the best you could do is animate each X/Y direction's behavior, creating a new animation at each bezier curve point, and using the bezier form of the timing function to mimic curved paths.
We are glad that many of you found our demo interesting. The point was to explore how we could apply some new browser features to present educational content in an interactive/immersive way.
Sorry about Pluto fans – we were also sad not to include it. We should have put it as an easter egg!
Thanks to people who reported typo/content errors.
We cannot fix them right now though – because we have no control over Mozilla's site. We'll push an update when we get the chance.
Ok, can I gripe about the text that says this about Saturn: "Despite its size (9.4 Earths)..."? While the diameter is 9.4 times that of Earth, the size of Saturn is way larger than 9 individual Earths. Volume-wise you could fit 764 Earths inside Saturn, and that would be a more appropriate metric. The weird hexagon storm on Saturn alone is the size of 4 Earths.
It looks awesome on Chrome, but there is a slight glitch in the shape of a flash that occurs once all animation appears to have finished. Anyone else experiencing this?
The article points it out, but the text comes in from different directions depending on whether you're clicking on the planet or scrolling to it from the side.
One thing I notice is that I can't select most of the text. I'd like HTML sites to do better than Flash in this regard -- conformance to established HTML behavior is supposed to be an advantage.
Moving the left and right arrows with the cursor is a great idea, especially since they don't move until you get close. It might be nicer if they would animate to the position when you first move the cursor over, though. It's kind of jumpy as is.
There's a bug though. If you click on first/last planet then the arrow will not appear at all. Naturally you expect right arrow when clicking the first planet. Vice versa.
Really impressive, but it's a shame that this is being labelled "CSS3" or "HTML5" when clearly it relies on a lot of JavaScript. It's a great example of weaving several front-end technologies together...and there should be nothing wrong with saying so.
I let out a sigh when I saw redundant but understandably necessary function calls to support all browsers. Is there hope in seeing stuff like this consolidated anytime soon?
-moz-transform:...
-webkit-transform:...
-o-transform:...
transform:...
Not really. The prefixes allow vendors to do experimental stuff without creating (as much) of a backwards compatiblity problem before things standardize. If you don't like it, use a preprocessor:
Sass, at least with its default SCSS syntax, is a strict superset of CSS3 so it's a good place to start. Your existing CSS files can be processed by Sass without changes.
They all either are or can be strict supersets of CSS3. What separates stylus is that you can write valid, non-superset CSS3 and invoke the appropriate functions/mixins:
That's input/output in stylus. This uses an `opacity` mixin defined that's being invoked without the optional parentheses and with the optional colon+semicolon.
I have the beginnings of the Compass CSS3 library that's on hold while TJ fixes bugs and adds features to cover edge cases. The eventual goal is the ability to write straight CSS3 and have everything work.
Note, by the way, that right now -moz-transform and -webkit-transform have different syntax, so "consolidation" involves deciding which syntax to standardize on.
It does seem a bit odd that all three major browser vendors are able to release interesting web-apps that only run at full-speed in their own browsers. Do they intentionally exploit some exclusive feature to show the other browsers up?
There was not any attempt to make it run faster in Firefox 4. The goal is to showcase the Web as a platform and its possibilities. There is clearly no point in making it run well only in one browser.
Besides, we developed this demo on OSX, where performance is comparable among all three supported browsers.
The ordering is sometimes the other way. You write the stuff you think is interesting, discover that you're not as fast as you'd like on it, fix whatever performance bugs you find.
Though in this case the demo was actually written after Firefox 4 development was frozen. So the fact that it's particularly fast in Firefox on Windows just has to do with hardware acceleration, nothing else.
Works perfectly in the latest mobile build of firefox (albeit slowly), which is a pleasant surprise - I expected it not to. Alas, for some reason the stock android browser can't even finish loading it.
We might as well just drop the whole idea of HTML, JS and CSS and just use 3rd party plugins to replace the whole thing. That totally makes sense. Innovation is for idiots.
The only "innovative" thing about this is- its not flash. The reason its not flash is because front end developers, hate flash with a passion that borders, frothing at the mouth psychosis. They hate flash because very simply it takes work off of their desk. At the end of the day, a client still won't want to pay twice as much for something that works on half of modern browsers when in reality his high school kid could have done it in 10 minutes with flash, (unless its for mobile). Its the same stupid argument I've heard for the past 10 years, but the difference today is mobile platforms won't support flash (or it just sucks on mobile) and there is finally an opportunity to kill flash. That pretty much sums it up. Haters will hate, client will still pay for flash, flash sucks on mobile, lame slide shows are not innovative.
First, innovation doesn't only happen in a single application and runtime (the browser). Flash has innovated as much as FF4 has. It's weird that the distribution model for the runtime defines what is innovation and what isn't. A runtime that is distributed as a plugin is inherently not innovative, while one that is a monolithic application is. Go figure.
And I think the point of the original poster isn't that we should drop HTML. But rather that this application isn't cool on first principles. You can show this same app to your child as a Flash app and your child should be just as impressed. It's a good work for HTML, but as far as applications distributed by a web server it isn't especially innovative. But we should keep working on HTHML/JS/CSS as it will get better.
because its the distribution that is innovative, its nice being able to draw text and images and move them around and stuff but that doesnt quite fall under my definition of innovative, for html and flash
the features of html/css/javascript are not impressive, the fact that you can build increasingly complex application that will work on a common runtime installed on every pc and most people tablets and phones without (barely)any packaging or installation procedures is a modern day miracle
the fact that you can build increasingly complex application that will work on a common runtime installed on every pc and most people tablets and phones without (barely)any packaging or installation procedures is a modern day miracle
This requires me to install a whole browser! For some reason the HN crowd sees installing FF4 as free. Installing a plug-in as nearly the equivalent to jail time, a horrendous chore.
With all due respect to all the excitement in mobile (where Flash is nonexistent), HTML5 fundamentally won't change the desktop at all. And certainly looking at an application that I've seen high school students do in Flash is simply not exciting. I salute HTML for finally getting there, but its just not fundamentally very interesting.
Installing a plugin is generally a one click procedure and I made no reference to firefox or plugins.
I wasnt being specific to this one page (which works in chrome as well), but at the same time it can be viewed in browsers going back to mosaic with varying degrees of aesthetic.
html has already changed the desktop and it is only going to go further, there are operating systems coming out that have nothing but a browser, most phones these days come with a browser, we are still in the early stages of building the most ubiqitous and usable computing platform that has ever existed, you might not get excited about it, but I do.