because if you do
then it's playable by most people who can load it in a browser
the language might have flaws but the compensation is you can reach a wide audience.
(
rob, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:49,
Reply)
yeah, agreed
but the tech is fundamentally flawed IMO - it's a step backwards not forwards. That's not to say it won't catch up, I'm sure it will (and this demo shows it's getting much better).
(
wideeye slightly pickled, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:51,
Reply)
I think for a user, it is simply a step to the side.
All the things it can do could be done with Flash. They will not notice much difference.
For a developer, it makes coding easier / cheaper.
Any commercial website which goes for a 'html5 aesthetic' to look modern is likely to be the equivalent of a site ten years ago with a Flash splash page. Sites have evolved away from design-for-designs-sake, as it usually annoys people.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:40,
Reply)
There's plenty you can do in WebGL that you can't do in Flash.
Shame it's not actually supported on everything. Not sure why it doesn't work on my PC, and really can't be bothered to work it out.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:29, Reply)
Is WebGL actually part of HTML5, though,
or is it an experimental thing which may be included in the future?
If Microsoft don't support it, then it is pretty useless in commercial web design (though I guess gamers are going to be more willing to be told to use a different browser).
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:03,
Reply)
It's not a proper ratified standard yet, last I heard.
And it's not really part of HTML5 (although that's a term that's come to mean a lot more than just the actual HTML), it's a non-standard context you can request from a canvas element. But there is already a decent consensus about it... except from Microsoft.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:16, Reply)