It run great on Firefox 10 on Win and Mac because they have hardware acceleration. Firefox 10 on my Ubuntu doesn't do hardware acceleration so even that it supports CSS 3D animations are slow as hell.
Microsoft also works hard on hardware acceleration in IE10, so it will probably run just fine there, whenever it will be released.
It's true, that being 'webkit-only' feels like good ol' IE-only sites. But that's a cost that you need pay to play with edge web technologies.
Thanks for getting back. Note that I _do_ consider the project cool and well - I know it works in FF 10, I tried. :)
I really just don't like to see the next gap in browser support and hate to see 'support everything but IE 6' turn into 'support nothing but the latest chrome'.
This is nothing against your project, in fact I think for this particular experiment you _had_ to push the requirements up.
Simply the interest about this project is far more bigger than I could expect and more and more people are confused about the browser support in it. And it really is confusing because today it's webkit-only. Firefox 10 is around the corner, but not just there yet, and Firefox 9 users may feel like they are excluded: "hey, I have latest Firefox, Y U NO WORK!?" ;)
Is it? I think all that means is: "Your browser should support hardware accelerated CSS3 and have a fast Javascript VM". Isn't the standards-centric view pretty much the opposite of the browser-centric one?
The project already said what you suggest, in fact several times.
Roughly:
"It's a presentation framework based on the power of CSS3 transforms and transitions in modern browsers and inspired by the idea behind prezi.com."
More or less exactly what you said:
"Impress.js is developed with current webkit-based browsers in mind (Chrome, Safari), but should work also in other browsers supporting CSS3 3D transforms and transitions (Firefox, IE10)."
It even says it is tested with nightly builds of Firefox and _then_ came up with the previously quoted:
"I don't really expect it to run smoothly in non-webkit-based browser."
At this point the requirements are already defined, the tested browser setups are listed. This is just surprising insofar as that
- the text before says that Firefox Aurora is tested as well (I've to admit I missed that reading the explanation the first time)
- this (and that was my real point) becomes a ~standard~ disclaimer by now. Chrome it is, the rest be damned. I think that's sad and still stand by my comparison to 'IE optimization' for things like this.
Comments
"I don't really expect it to run smoothly in non-webkit-based browser."
That's the new 'optimized for IE 5 at 1024x768' it seems. Sad.
I was a little bit wrong about that.
It run great on Firefox 10 on Win and Mac because they have hardware acceleration. Firefox 10 on my Ubuntu doesn't do hardware acceleration so even that it supports CSS 3D animations are slow as hell.
Microsoft also works hard on hardware acceleration in IE10, so it will probably run just fine there, whenever it will be released.
It's true, that being 'webkit-only' feels like good ol' IE-only sites. But that's a cost that you need pay to play with edge web technologies.
Thanks for getting back. Note that I _do_ consider the project cool and well - I know it works in FF 10, I tried. :)
I really just don't like to see the next gap in browser support and hate to see 'support everything but IE 6' turn into 'support nothing but the latest chrome'.
This is nothing against your project, in fact I think for this particular experiment you _had_ to push the requirements up.
Bottom line: No offense intended.
I didn't find it offensive at all, no worries :)
Simply the interest about this project is far more bigger than I could expect and more and more people are confused about the browser support in it. And it really is confusing because today it's webkit-only. Firefox 10 is around the corner, but not just there yet, and Firefox 9 users may feel like they are excluded: "hey, I have latest Firefox, Y U NO WORK!?" ;)
Is it? I think all that means is: "Your browser should support hardware accelerated CSS3 and have a fast Javascript VM". Isn't the standards-centric view pretty much the opposite of the browser-centric one?
Well, no.
The project already said what you suggest, in fact several times.
Roughly: "It's a presentation framework based on the power of CSS3 transforms and transitions in modern browsers and inspired by the idea behind prezi.com."
More or less exactly what you said: "Impress.js is developed with current webkit-based browsers in mind (Chrome, Safari), but should work also in other browsers supporting CSS3 3D transforms and transitions (Firefox, IE10)."
It even says it is tested with nightly builds of Firefox and _then_ came up with the previously quoted:
"I don't really expect it to run smoothly in non-webkit-based browser."
At this point the requirements are already defined, the tested browser setups are listed. This is just surprising insofar as that
- the text before says that Firefox Aurora is tested as well (I've to admit I missed that reading the explanation the first time)
- this (and that was my real point) becomes a ~standard~ disclaimer by now. Chrome it is, the rest be damned. I think that's sad and still stand by my comparison to 'IE optimization' for things like this.
True, but majority of the users doesn't know if their browser supports hardware accelerated CSS3 and has fast JS VM. And they probably don't care.
Listing browsers (or with hardware acceleration browsers+systems) helps to know what configuration can be used to make it work.
In that case "webkit-based" won't help non-technical users either :)