HTML5: notes for analysts and journalists

There have been a few stories lately for investors rather than techies that have a few inaccuracies, probably because they’re written by finance/ business journalists rather than tech journalists. (Nothing wrong in that; I know my HTML5 from my CSS but couldn’t tell a gilt-edged bond from a derivative.)

Here a few notes for analysts and journalists that might chance upon this blog.

There’s a piece entitled 2.1bn HTML5 browsers on mobile devices by 2016 – ABI Research quoting some laudably specific figures:

By 2016, more than 2.1 billion mobile devices will have HTML5 browsers, up from just 109 million in 2010.

Before the expansion from “just” 109 million to “more than” 2.1 billion makes you rush out and leverage your portfolio, we need to know what our anonymous author means by the term “HTML5 browser”.

If you define an “HTML5 browser” as one that supports all features of HTML5 then there are precisely zero in existence. (You’d need to define “HTML5″, of course, but that’s another story.)

If you define an “HTML5 browser” as one that can consume some HTML5 features, then all browsers are “HTML5 compliant”.

Please, dear analyst/ journalist friend, define what you’re talking about before giving precise figures and talking about accelerating adoption. (I’m always up for being contacted – email bruce at this domain – if you need to check something out, by the way.)

Our anonymous author quotes a Mark Beccue saying “I believe that Apple will be the key driver of HTML5″. Mr Beccue is, of course, at liberty to believe what he wants. Until my nephew was three, he believed that there was a creature that lived in the toilet called The Poozilla (I’d like to apologise to him publicly here). Believing it doesn’t make it true.

There are many claims to be the “driver” of HTML5. Opera began it, of course; Ian Hickson edits the spec and works for Google so you could argue that Google is a driver. As you like, and whatever gets you a better headline.

The truth is that browser manufacturers are driving it collaboratively because if browsers don’t render HTML interoperably, developers will use some proprietary technology instead. (This doesn’t have to be a prosaic truth: the fact that all browsers are working together on HTM5, if not on other technology, is quite a story.)

Consumers benefit from interoperable webpages: most people use multiple devices and browsers; it’s stupid if you can use your bank website on your work machine, but not your Linux netbook or phone. There are significant advantages to HTML5 over HTML 4 for developers.

Mr Beccue (or the anonymous author channelling Mr Beccue, as we are denied any link to Mr Beccue’s full analysis) believes that Flash will imminently disappear:

One important HTML5 feature, video, is making a play to challenge the popular Adobe Flash Player plugin software…“I think the disappearance of Flash is closer than people think”

There are numerous reasons why Flash may be a more appropriate way to deliver your video content. Perhaps you need DRM, or adaptive bitrate streaming, for example.

Also, dear journalist/ analyst, it’s fair to point out that there are numerous problems with multimedia on Apple’s iOS:

Mr Beccue (or the person quoting Mr Beccue) has presumably failed to realise that Flash does more than merely play video. This is an important point if you’re proclaiming its imminent demise.

If you want access to the paid-for report by Mr Beccue,
GigaOM has a similar article (which helpfully tells us “the HTML5 is very important”) that links to HTML5 for Mobile Devices and Tablets by ABI Consulting.

In the table of contents, we see conclusion #1: “Mobile Is the Primary Focus of HTML5″. A brief look at the HTML5 Design Principles shows that this is simply wrong:

Features should be designed for universal access…Features should, when possible, work across different platforms, devices, and media.

I enjoyed the Forbes journalist’s balanced appraisal of Flash and HTML5 in the piece Why Opposing HTML5 And Flash Is Nonsense, and agreed with his conclusions.

However, he gives a list of “facts” asserting “These are not interpretations or opinions. These are facts.”

As it’s just possible that another journalist or analyst might be impressed by Forbes’ vehemence and quote these “facts” without question, let’s give them some critical examination.

You do not build a web site in Flash. The only way to build a website is to use HTML pages, and then to embed Flash elements in them.

This supports the author’s thesis that talk of all-Flash websites is an impossibility. Well, yes, technically. But Flash can be embedded using two lines of HTML, neither of which has any visual manifestation (see Blankety-Blank example) so this doesn’t mean much.

Less than half of installed browsers are HTML5 compliant, with different levels of compliance.

As our wikipedia chums would say “Citation needed”. And, please dear Analyst, see above for the absolute necessity to define “HTML5 browser” or “HTML5-compliant”.

The video element in HTML5 is perfect for basic video players, but Flash and Silverlight are much more suitable for advanced video feature (streaming, caption, interactive features and miscellaneous video effects)

Really? I very much like the text-based synchronised subtitles available on things like Playr or mediaelement.js, which are HTML5.

Streaming is also completely possible with HTML5 video. “Miscelleaneous video effects” needs definition before you can claim that HTML5 can’t do them. (It’s been possible to do things like edge-detection, blend, greyscaling for a couple of years with SVG + native video – see http://www.dahlström.net/svg/filters/video/video-filter.svg in Opera, for example).

The iPony Club

Finally, Business Insider has a video in which “Facebook Investor” Roger McNamee exhibits the kind of breathless anticipation about “HTML5″ that is more commonly found in the minds of the prepubescent heroines of a specific genre of children’s fiction as they describe the prospect of riding Misty Mane, their new pony, for the first time. (From 8’58″ onwards.)

I address the paraphrases, as they’re what get quoted and picked up:

HTML5 is going to change everything. “In HTML5, an ad is an app, a tweet is an app, everything is an app.” “It’s a blank sheet of paper, and creativity rules again.”

I’m not sure how “a tweet is an app” makes any kind of technical sense. And, much as I like HTML5, this isn’t the Renaissance – we’re not seeing some massive resurgence of human creativity because of a new DOCTYPE.

In HTML5, you don’t need to have display ads: Amazon can have a section of its store as an ad. So if you’re reading a book review, you can buy the book right from the page.

As you’ve been able to do for 10 years.

Because HTML5 can make sites rich and interactive, engagement on a site can go from seconds to minutes.

Flash can make sites rich and interactive. So can HTML 4. The key here is “rich and interactive”, not a particular DOCTYPE.

The iPad is the training wheels for HTML5.

Seriously, have a lie down.

(Added January 2012: the offending video by McNamee:)

What a load of nonsense!

7 Responses to “ HTML5: notes for analysts and journalists ”

Comment by Mark Embling

The author of that piece has also totally overlooked (though ignorance most likely) the fact that “miscellaneous video effects” can be created very effectively though the use of canvas. The well-known ambilight demo is a great example of that.

I have to totally agree with you, some of those quotes at best don’t make sense, at worst are total disinformation.

Comment by Jayman Pandya

“The iPad is the training wheels for HTML5.

Seriously, have a lie down.”

U r the man Bruce. I was just not able to stop laughing after this… Very good analysis of how non-techies write things… :)

Comment by Craig Buckler

Great analysis Bruce.

The article is another example of lazy journalism. Or it’s uninformed opinion dressed-up as fact.

Unfortunately, it’s a problem which pervades the media industry. Read an article in the mainstream press about any topic you understand — it’ll be riddled with half-truths and mis-quotes.

It makes you wonder how accurate ‘serious’ news stories really are.