All is not lost (but it is broken)



  • There's been a bit of press over OK Go's new music video, All Is Not Lost. There's also a Chrome "interactive experience" that goes along with the video.

    It looks like this (I typed in "I love bacon" as my message, if that matters):

    Oh, and for once I didn't scale the window-- that is actual size, exactly what I see. And I'm viewing it in Chrome, which is the supported browser.

    I wonder if the thought of "debugging" ever occurred...

    Edit: Oh and BTW, the video is pretty much 100% unitard-wearing crotch shots.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    There's also a Chrome "interactive experience" that goes along with the video.
    Seems to be 100% broken now.  Typing in any message results in:


     @blakeyrat said:

    the video is pretty much 100% unitard-wearing crotch shots.
    At first glance I thought that said retard.  Which might not be too far off.

     

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

     Works for me, and interesting Javascript tricks. If anybody who isn't OK Go ever uses any of this shit for interwebs content, however, I will MURDER THEM IN THE FACE.

     

    Do not touch or resize any windows, or you'll break it.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    the video is pretty much 100% unitard-wearing crotch shots
    At least some of them seem to be girl crotches, so all is not lost, indeed.



  • I got a tiny window with a video, a tiny window with some controls, and lots of empty black windows. Then I gave up.



  • @dhromed said:

    I got a tiny window with a video, a tiny window with some controls, and lots of empty black windows. Then I gave up.

    you should wait ...
    it gets interesting towards the end



  • @Weng said:

    Works for me, and interesting Javascript tricks. If anybody who isn't OK Go ever uses any of this shit for interwebs content, however, I will MURDER THEM IN THE FACE.

    This. It's like the bitcoin of music videos. An interesting experiment, makes you wonder how they did it, but I never want to be involved.

    @Weng said:

    Do not touch or resize any windows, or you'll break it.

    Yeah, I was a little worried when it opened up 14 windows.



  • @Weng said:

    Do not touch or resize any windows, or you'll break it.

    That screenshot up there is one I took before I resized some of the windows.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    That screenshot up there is one I took before I resized some of the windows.

    At first, most of the windows were black for me. They started moving and resizing as the video went on. With this sort of bleeding edge stuff, you have to wonder what else might be affecting this sort of thing (i.e., addons, very sensitive to the version of chrome, OS settings, browser settings). It's somewhat disturbing that a page is able to do all the stuff that this one does.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    That screenshot up there is one I took before I resized some of the windows.

    At first, most of the windows were black for me. They started moving and resizing as the video went on. With this sort of bleeding edge stuff, you have to wonder what else might be affecting this sort of thing (i.e., addons, very sensitive to the version of chrome, OS settings, browser settings). It's somewhat disturbing that a page is able to do all the stuff that this one does.

    Eh. This isn't anything you couldn't do in Netscape 4 or IE 5. Other than the HTML5 VIDEO tag.

    The real mystery is why they didn't use iframes, which can be created and moved in the same way, and yet wouldn't be as delicate to things like users resizing windows, switching applications in the middle of playback, dragging the backdrop window to a new monitor, or whatever the hell went wrong on my computer to give me that shitty experience.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Eh. This isn't anything you couldn't do in Netscape 4 or IE 5. Other than the HTML5 VIDEO tag.

    OK. I guess that makes sense. I usually configure javascript to not be able to resize windows on FF (or whenever I see that sort of thing). Although, back in those days, you'd probably have a tough time getting that many videos to play smoothly.

    @blakeyrat said:

    The real mystery is why they didn't use iframes, which can be created and moved in the same way, and yet wouldn't be as delicate to things like users resizing windows, switching applications in the middle of playback, dragging the backdrop window to a new monitor, or whatever the hell went wrong on my computer to give me that shitty experience.

    I can see why they wouldn't, if only because no one else seems to do stuff like that. Stuff moving around on a single page wouldn't seem very interesting or new. And watching multiple, coordinated videos in obviously separate windows was somewhat novel. And it's not easy to top the Rube Goldberg video (this one doesn't come close, IMHO).


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said:

    And it's not easy to top the Rube Goldberg video (this one doesn't come close, IMHO).
    I think I liked this one better, actually:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjIiW3mZrT4&feature=related

     

    If only because of the INSANE amount of planning and coordination such a thing takes - the rube goldberg video wasn't actually as seamless as it looks - there are 2 points where you can spot a reset-and-splice in the final video.



  • TRWTF is that web pages have any access to or control of the windowing system.



  • @Weng said:

    I think I liked this one better, actually:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjIiW3mZrT4&feature=related

     

    Wow, I didn't know they'd made all these cool videos. Thx.

     



  • @Weng said:

    If only because of the INSANE amount of planning and coordination such a thing takes - the rube goldberg video wasn't actually as seamless as it looks - there are 2 points where you can spot a reset-and-splice in the final video.
    I read somewhere that they ran the whole thing 3 times, then spliced it together because it went out of sync with music.



  • @ender said:

    @Weng said:
    If only because of the INSANE amount of planning and coordination such a thing takes - the rube goldberg video wasn't actually as seamless as it looks - there are 2 points where you can spot a reset-and-splice in the final video.
    I read somewhere that they ran the whole thing 3 times, then spliced it together because it went out of sync with music.
    It was pretty obvious that they did the whole thing more than once since all the people have paint on them at the beginning of the video.  But still it took a lot of work to do all that.



  • Worked fine for me, but: sheesh! Can we be really naff next time?



  • @Matt Westwood said:

    Worked fine for me, but: sheesh! Can we be really naff next time?

    ... can we be really naff next time.

    I looked up "naff" and that sentence still makes no sense.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @El_Heffe said:

    It was pretty obvious that they did the whole thing more than once since all the people have paint on them at the beginning of the video.  But still it took a lot of work to do all that.
    I race in the same series as the guys who provided the car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HiN7860CZk&feature=related&t=3m06s) - yeah, that piece of shit isn't just a piece of clever visual noise, it's the real deal. Yes, complete with the hood-mounted extra radiators. Anyway, I vaguely remember their posting up to our forum about it - they were resetting literally all day and only the last 2 or 3 ran all the way through unaided.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Matt Westwood said:
    Worked fine for me, but: sheesh! Can we be really naff next time?

    ... can we be really naff next time.

    I looked up "naff" and that sentence still makes no sense.

    Good to hear I'm not alone with this. I thought it was either some cultural reference I don't get or some language barrier thing.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.