Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Google Chrome is the new Internet Explorer

Remember the irritations of the 1990s, when sites all too often behaved differently when visited with different browsers, and some wouldn't work at all unless you used the increasingly non-standards-compliant browser from the most powerful software company of the day?

Boo hiss for today's Google Doodle:

Dude, I'm using the latest version of Firefox. That IS a modern browser, and this Doodle doesn't do anything in that. And no, I am not going to visit your home page using Chrome.

When you're even pissing off your fanboys, you're doing it wrong.

25 comments:

Jack said...

Interesting.

I wonder what kind of code is running today's doodle. Is it something proprietary, or is it something standards-based that Firefox hasn't yet implemented? Sorry for my ignorance; as you know, I live in an IE-cacoon so I don't keep up on what the other browsers are doing / can do / etc.

Jack said...

Even if they just said "upgrade" (or "switch," or "use") "to Google Chrome," it would have a little less sting. But they just can't resist saying that every other browser is, by definition, archaic.

Arrogance isn't an attractive trait.

Uncle Ebeneezer said...

I have Google chrome (but viewed this in Safari). When I read the "modern" remark, I decided not to use Chrome to view it, if only out of spite/silent protest. Now I will be hesitant to ever use Chrome.

M. Bouffant said...

Geeze, what a bunch of poopy-heads.

What you can do w/ a "modern" browser is make a four track recording of Moog sounds.

Brendan Keefe said...

LOL!

Brendan Keefe said...

@Jack: Didn't look under the hood, so it's conceivable, I suppose, that something in the JavaScript that runs that Doodle is, say, a proposed standard that Mozilla either doesn't agree with or has yet to implement.

Uncle Ebeneezer said...

@MB- well, that is pretty cool (though I'm much more of a Rhodes man myself) but it doesn't lessen the irritating nature of reverting back to 90's-era browser war mentality. So while I may view it in Google Chrome and play around with it, I will absolutely not make GC my default browser, or click on any ads. Take that Google.

Jack said...

Based on the next to last paragraph in this write up, it does sound like Google is using proprietary tech in that doodle. I didn't follow any of the links or dig any further, but "Google+ API" doesn't sound like something I would expect a *modern* browser to support as much as something a *Google* browser would support.

I will add that some very good things have come from non-standards compliant/-limited, initially-proprietary extensions in the past, not the least of which includes AJAX.

toma said...

The "modern" browser blanched at my website yesterday, saying it was secretly a ".bluehost.com" site (my server) and, thus, hijacked. How's that for a traffic-killer?

Brendan Keefe said...

@toma: Ouch. Sorry to hear that. Fwiw, I just visited your site with my copy of Chrome and saw no blanching. Also, Googling for your site did not produce the dreaded "this site may harm your computer" on the results page. Did you do something, or do we just write this one off as a transient gremlin?

@Jack: I wondered if the reason the Doodle did nothing was due to my running the Flashblock add-on in Firefox, but I couldn't be arsed to disable it to confirm. Thanks for that link.

I have to admit that none of what is described there is proprietary in a browser-wars way. The Web Audio API is still getting sorted out, as I understand it, and I don't have a problem with different teams racing each other to be first to implement proposed/draft standards. And of course I am not against innovation.

The G+ API, I am betting, is used only to share the thing you create, so if I'm right, I have no prob with that, either.

So, ultimately, I guess the only thing I have a problem with is the attitude of Chrome promoters.

Jack said...

Are you saying it worked (or would have worked) when you (had you) enabled Flash?

I'm mildly curious whether those doodles are kept somewhere so you can see them after they pass off the Google homepage.

Jack said...

In other news, thank fucking god it's fucking Friday.

I mean, really.

Whoever came up with the great idea that the other six days of the week NOT be Friday really should be shot.

Brendan Keefe said...

Re: Flash: Yes, according to the post you linked to.

Past doodles are available.

Happy Friday! LOL!

Jack said...

Okay, I just tried it in Firefox. I don't have Flashblock installed in that browser. That the thing works.

So now the question is why they say "get a modern browser" if the problem isn't the browser, but Flashblock. Seems unwise / poorly planned.

Thanks for the link to the past doodles...

Brendan Keefe said...

In fairness, it is more modern of a browser to support audio without having to resort to Flash (or some other plugin). At least that's the thinking among HTML5ers, as I understand it -- browsers should be able to handle audio, video, drawing canvases, drag and drop, local storage, etc., etc., etc.

Jack said...

Yeah, you have a good point; that sounds like it very well may have been what they were thinking. (Not to sound ambiguous; I think your explanation makes perfect sense.)

So, if Flash was only being used for the audio, did Flashblock (or whatever the name of the plugin is) produce some visible cue that it was blocking content? I still don't understand how the "use a modern browser" message came to be displayed. That's not a Flashblock message; it's a Google message. Did Google intercept the response from Flashblock and then produce the "get a modern browser" message?

Sorry if I am being clueless. It's Friday night here in Midland, with all that that entails.

In other questions, what the hell does "that the thing works" mean? (LOL)

Now, let's see if I can pass the CAPTCHA Exam.

Jack said...

You're probably starting to regret every giving me an excuse to drone on like this.

;-)

Next thing you know you'll turn this into a celebrity blog. ;-D

Brendan Keefe said...

In answer to your first question, no, Flashblock did not, this time, produce any sort of indication that it had blocked something. Usually, it's quite good about it (e.g.), but sometimes it just silently blocks. It may have something to do with Flash being invoked only as an "else" in an if-then-else, deep within some JavaScript function. Or, it may have something to do with it being audio-only -- I have had several experiences wrestling with streaming Internet radio stations that wouldn't until I finally had my d'oh moment and thought to disable Flashblock for that site.

To the second question: if I were to bet, I would say the "try a modern browser" message came about by a capability test of some sort. (The new, approved method, as opposed to browser-sniffing, that is.) You can get the flavor of such a test on HTML5 Rocks, for example.

And as far as I'm concerned, if you and M. Bouffant are commenting here, it already IS a celebrity blog.

Jack said...

* To the second question: if I were to bet, I would say the "try a modern browser" message came about by a capability test of some sort. *

That's what I would have assumed, too, but then the question is why did you see it while I did not. When I went to the page with Firefox without Flashblock, it didn't say "try a modern browser."

Unless the archive page behaves differently than the homepage did when the doodle was there. (Do you get the "modern browser" message when you view the doodle here?)

Brendan Keefe said...

No disrespect to toma and Uncle Eb, one hastens to add.

;)

Brendan Keefe said...

I don't get a message when I visit the archived version, no. On the other hand (with Flashblock still active), the doodle still does nothing.

Brendan Keefe said...

I conclude, therefore, that my gripe had some effect, and so the smug message was removed from the archived version.

;)

Jack said...

Heh.

Uncle Ebeneezer said...

Hey I'm a celebrity too. Just "Netscape" my name and you'll see ;)

Brendan Keefe said...

Haha! You and George Tierney, huh?

ShareThis