
HTML5 by Default – Draft Proposal - synthmeat
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/106_KLNJfwb9L-1hVVa4i29aw1YXUy9qFX-Ye4kvJj-4/edit#slide=id.p
======
TazeTSchnitzel
The title "HTML5 by Default – Draft Proposal" isn't very descriptive,
unfortunately, even though it's the original title. Something along the lines
of "Moving from Flash to HTML5 by default in Google Chrome" might be more
helpful. I'm not sure.

~~~
brudgers
To me, it's not descriptive in the sense that the plan calls for whitelisting
Flash on _n_ sites by default. Which means that HTML5 isn't really the
default.

~~~
rictic
(For one year, then the top sites whitelist will be removed)

------
cptskippy
Flash is used a great deal for advertisements which most people aren't going
to care is missing from a page but it will still trigger the pop over thing.

I find the prompting at the top of the page to be nuisance and people are
likely to turn it off so they don't get prompted all the time. Advertisers and
malicious sites will find a way to make it appear and then offer helpful
instructions for getting rid of it.

I would say for sites, that just push flash without detection, change from the
missing puzzle piece icon to a non-obtrusive "run this flash content" play
button. You could even add a checkbox to "always play content for this site".
That way there's no annoying flash pop over and you only run flash when the
user demands it on a case by case basis. This will have the added effect of
encouraging content producers to migrate because heavily flash laden pages
will just look ridiculous.

For sites, that try to detect Flash, display their "you need flash" messages
and respond accordingly to clicks to install. The potential risk here is that
people will become accustom to these prompts and a site might try to exploit
that to get people to download something nasty.

------
verandaguy
I'm all for this proposal. It's relatively unintrusive while keeping control
mostly in the hands of the user.

Not sure where the official RFC/comment thread for this is, but pending
finding that, it would be nice to half a mechanism similar to AdBlock's where
a user can whitelist flash based on domain, subdomain, or directory[0].

I'm also against the idea of "trusting" the top ten most used domains. It
justifies further telemetry by Google (I know, it's Chrome anyway), but more
importantly, it puts those "trusted" sites in a position where they can take
advantage of their positions to inject malicious or unwanted content into
their Flash elements.

[0] [https://i.imgur.com/fFuAwDV.png](https://i.imgur.com/fFuAwDV.png)

------
TazeTSchnitzel
I like that Google are moving to this model. It's already how some people
(like me) have their browsers configured anyway. Flash is a pain, performance
and battery life-wise, and it's all too often used for video ads and such.
Making Flash on the web click-to-play for everyone means we're a step closer
to confining Flash to the garbage can of history.

~~~
robmcm
"Flash is a pain, performance and battery life-wise, and it's all too often
used for video ads and such"

Unfortunately you could easily replace Flash for JavaScript these days.

I wonder how long before the default is to brows with JavaScript turned off...
or is it too integral to basic web pages now?

I think we will look back at the days when Flash was prevalent wish we could
easily group all the advertising and cpu intensive scripts into a optional
plugin.

~~~
andybak
> I wonder how long before the default is to brows with JavaScript turned
> off... or is it too integral to basic web pages now?

As Flash once was. Maybe a grass-roots revolt is needed. Something akin to
Apple refusing to allow Flash on iOS.

Imagine if js was throttled - or automatically disabled if a page was detected
as being too resource-intensive? That would realign the incentives of user and
content-producer and web-developers would find it considerably easier to argue
for spending time on performance tuning.

I believe Google's using pagespeed as a factor in ranking is a small step in
this direction. I hope someone goes all in.

~~~
ygra
> Imagine if js was throttled - or automatically disabled if a page was
> detected as being too resource-intensive?

Google tried doing something in that direction, by not running functions
registered with setTimeout in certain cases (a pattern that's supposedly often
used by ads on a site, impacting load time), thereby breaking a whole lot of
legitimate cases along the way.

~~~
robmcm
Opera has just done something like this for it's low power mode:

Reduced activity in background tabs

Waking CPU less often due to more optimal scheduling of JavaScript timers

Automatically pausing unused plug-ins

Reduced frame rate to 30 frames per second

Tuning video-playback parameters and forcing usage of hardware accelerated
video codecs

Paused animations of browser themes

[http://www.opera.com/blogs/desktop/2016/05/introducing-
power...](http://www.opera.com/blogs/desktop/2016/05/introducing-power-saving-
mode/)

------
nye2k
Why?

If a site chooses to have a flash experience, why inhibit that? Google is
bullying an already narrowed market.

There are experience that Flash simply handles better, and HTML5 cannot
emulate. Animated experiences are at the top of that list.

The correct user experience would be seamless for both the user and the
content producer. This UX is essentially warning the user that they are
entering unwanted territory, and using fear to narrow the flash market.

~~~
toomanythings2
Adobe has dumped Flash on mobile. A sure sign that Flash will be dropped on
the desktop, too, as developers aren't going to want to have to maintain two
workflows.

To support Flash means you are supporting a proprietary software tool and the
company behind it, selling development tools.

The tools and implementations might not be up to par with Flash but that's
today. The sun will come out tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow
.....

~~~
samsonradu
I think it was the other way around, Adobe didn't dump Flash on mobile. Also
until the "sun comes out tomorrow" why can't a part of the market
(smaller/bigger) enjoy the better experience that Flash offers and HTML5
cannot? (animations, games, livestreaming and so on)

~~~
toomanythings2
From 2011:

Adobe ends mobile Flash development, will focus on HTML5

Adobe will no longer update its Flash plugin for mobile browsers, though it
will continue to issue security updates and bug fixes. The company issued a
statement to developers conceding that "HTML5 is now universally supported on
major mobile devices, in some cases exclusively," adding "that makes HTML5 the
best solution for creating and deploying content in the browser across mobile
platforms."

[http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/9/2549196/adobe-flash-
androi...](http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/9/2549196/adobe-flash-android-
blackberry)

------
shmerl
It's a pity Shumway project died:
[https://github.com/mozilla/shumway](https://github.com/mozilla/shumway)

Because despite all attempts to kick Flash off the Web, it's still lingering
around.

------
ape4
Getting rid of Flash is good. But it doesn't mean we aren't going to avoid
annoying advertisements - they'll just use html5.

~~~
stormbrew
In fact, the move to native HTML for dynamic advertising has made it more
difficult to control browser CPU usage, since before you could cut it down a
lot just by turning off flash. Now it's indistinguishable from legitimate page
content.

~~~
ape4
This page wanted to create a <canvas> in a size or position that suggest it
might be an ad. Allow: Yes/No/Always

------
mangeletti
> …will will intercept the request, cancel the navigation, and instead present
> an "Allow Flash Player…"

That's a bad idea.

If Flash Player is disabled by default, large sites like Pandora will learn in
short order that they just need to attempt to use Flash, rather than pointing
the user there. If they don't, then they will be replaced by websites that
care more about their users.

------
amelius
> When a user encounters a site that needs Flash Player, a prompt will appear
> at the top of the page, giving the user the option of allowing it for a site

How about keeping the experience exactly the same for both cases (allow
downloading of the HTML5 video source in non-flash format, by using an
internal transcoder).

~~~
Fargren
Flash is used for more than video (and ads). Flash games still exist, for
example.

~~~
sevensor
And homestarrunner.com! The Internet of 10-15 years ago was awash in
legitimate Flash content, and we're rapidly losing the ability to view it.

~~~
pfooti
Luckily, almost all of the H*R stuff has gotten ported to youtube content.
It's a little sad to not find the random easter eggs anymore, but the stuff is
still there for your eeeemail pleasure. (preeeow paper noise)

[https://www.youtube.com/user/homestarrunnerdotcom](https://www.youtube.com/user/homestarrunnerdotcom)

------
eterm
I wonder what their "top 10" whitelisted sites are?

It would be odd (for example) if they whitelisted YouTube to keep that
seamless while degrading other sites. (Youtube has had a decent html5 player
for ages, but my point is it's a bit arbitrary to whitelist sites in this
way.)

~~~
mtgx
They mention the top sites at the link below:

[https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/ch...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/chromium-
dev/HTML5$20by$20default/chromium-dev/0wWoRRhTA_E/__E3jf40OAAJ)

~~~
CJefferson
Wow, looking at that list, it really is a case of "let's break all the little
guys". Why should all these big video sites get to keep Flash, while the rest
of us have to jump through hoops?

~~~
pmarin
html5 video playing is pathetic on slow machines.

~~~
nkristoffersen
I'll bet a lot of modern things are pathetic on slow machines ;-)

------
binaryanomaly
Really looking forward to finally get rid of flash and move to an html5 only
world. Thumbs up!

------
wodenokoto
When sharing google documents, use the publish feature. It allows more
concurrent views and is faster for all (both the end user and Google, which
can get very slow at serving highly accessed documents in the editor)

------
pmarin
For playing video HTML5 is too slow for old intel core cpus. They should spend
more time optimizing whatever video codec it uses instead of depreciating a
good existing solution.

------
asd
I noticed the docs.google.com link and cringed. Load the document, scroll down
a couple times, and attempt to click back. Yikes.

[http://i.imgur.com/3nhDeYP.png](http://i.imgur.com/3nhDeYP.png)

------
kdamken
While I get why it's built like this, I hate, hate, hate, _hate_ when a
slideshow is set up where each slide is a new page. If you didn't open it in a
new tab, it makes going back to where you were before a nightmare.

~~~
robmcm
This isn't related to flash or JS, it's a choice made by the developers/sales
department.

Having a new page impression for each slide is a win for advertising revenue.

~~~
joshstrange
I'm not sure if you visited the page but it's a google slideshow, no
advertizing revenue and I'm not sure how much "slide" impression stuff is
actually tracked on google slideshow.

~~~
robmcm
I did not, Google Docs is blocked at my work place. Apologies.

~~~
joshstrange
No problem, you had about a 99.99% chance of being right as most slideshows
are exactly what you described.

