Google Art Project
googleartproject.com
googleartproject.com
Seurat knew a lot about dots -- but seriously, the resolution is pretty impressive.
Variable resolution is the thing it has going for it. Ability to zoom in on painterly detail, or on details of larger-scale work.
Much of the sculpture does not come across well at all -- no multiple views, very static presentation (e.g., http://www.googleartproject.com/collection/the-art-institute... or http://www.googleartproject.com/artist/andrea-zittel/4132322...). A loss.
They should focus on pieces that will come across in this format.
This is the video introducing this project at TED.
Awesome concept though. Probably would have been nice to have when I took art history in college.
Seriously, developers should be more aggressive about not supporting "legacy" browsers. Many people, and organizations, won't upgrade until they have to. IE6 and IE7 should be dumped now and IE8 should be dumped in a couple of years. There are other options.
HTML 5 is great and all, but if a web site is trying to gain pageviews/users/whatever, then effectively blocking out one of the most widely-used browsers makes no sense to me.
In short, this entire thread was pointless. Thanks for wasting my time.
So:
Whether they're selling ads on the site or not, is irrelevant. They're an ad company, and (one would assume) want, as a consequence, to get as many people to their online estates as they can. That makes this site, whether it displays ads or not, a springboard to their sites that do. Assuming they're in the business of making money [2].
Similarly, whether HTML5 is a standard or not, is also irrelevant. The effect is the same as the effect IE6 had. It denies access to people who choose not to use a specific tool. It's like telling me Linux is good because it's free. Free doesn't make it compelling. Standards won't make me switch browsers. Especially unratified new ones [3].
If Google're hoping to win me back (I've become anti-Google over the years), or to use their browser, then this (blocking access to a web site I may like) is not the way to do it.
[1] Doesn't even say it's an HTML5 showcase. This is what the site does say:
You’re missing out…
Sorry, the Google Art Project uses technology that your browser doesn’t understand.
Install Chrome Frame for Internet Explorer to improve your experience of using the web. It’s simple and only needs to be done once.
Install Chrome Frame.
[2] I doubt they're altruistic enough to put a site up for the benefit of the public at large, and not the benefit of their shareholders. If they are that altruistic they're failing their shareholders.
[3] Understand me here, I think standards are awesome. They're even more awesommer when the standards are ubiquitous. Which HTML5 isn't.
It's not about me insiting on using IE. It's about a web site that excludes almost one third of the Internet population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers).
Re-read what I wrote in the previous post. Also note my point that being free will not make me use a product. Chrome is spyware. Firefox offers nothing I need and don't already have. Safari means I have to switch hardware and software.
Oh, and IE9 mainstream support only ends in 2015 (http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselectindex). How's that an outdated browser? Unless your only measure of "current" is HTML5. In which case 99% of the Internet is outdated, no?
http://www.apple.com/safari/download/
That one third of the Internet will have to wait for IE10 or upgrade to a better browser. My problem is that I think we've waited long enough to move forward with HTML5. Let's get on with it! There's no reason companies can't install Chrome along side of IE, for example. Slow moving companies will upgrade when they have to. It's starting to look like they have to.
"use chrome" sounds an awful lot like "site only available in IE 6". That's why we're in this mess.
This is all obvious, right? You can also use Firefox as far back as 3.6, an "ancient" browser, if you'd like.
It isn't about standards, it isn't about IE6 or FireFox or Chrome. It's about providing a baseline of functionality and building up features. It doesn't cost any more money or take any more time than it does to build top-down - and in fact, in the long run, there's a quantifiable cost savings in maintenance of an application built with a solid foundation. It's not more work, it's just working differently. You'd plan and build your back end to scale, to be maintainable, to be testable; why not the front end?