Video is technically about to get to the stage for Wikipedia where it will become more and more visible. There are contacts with GLAM that will provide us with relevant material, material that will not be provided in H264.
So there is this stand off not unlike the Apple and Adobe situation. The difference is that Microsoft has no control over the platform. In Europe Microsoft has to offer the choice of an alternative browser. It is quite easy to bypass IE elsewhere as well.
Given that Facebook is to provide Wikipedia content, two of the most popular websites will be suboptimal supported by the "new, mega, wonderful (insert your marketing adjective)" offering of Microsoft. As you are the customer and as you can, you can vote with your feet.
Thanks,
GerardM
3 comments:
It has build in support for Silverlight though, making it the absolute best browser out there - obviously!
The question will partly be, who does the customer blame if video doesn't work on Wikipedia (WP for having a broken site or Microsoft for having a broken browser) and how does it hinder the IE9 situation hinder the Wikimedia mission in providing access to knowledge to everyone and what can Wikimedia do about it...
But what is more important I think is for video on Wikipedia/Commons to be more accessible by providing convenient embed links and easier to share and comment on to engage the audience and thus increase reach. (The easier sharing options for images might be useful as well, especially if we want to make it easy for re-users to adhere to the license requirements.)
Perhaps it doesn't have built in support for html5 video. But how many consumers do you know that willing use IE, and know what HTML5 actually is? I'm sure most of them will not mind using the java applet.
Post a Comment