I'm a Firefox fan myself, but this is on Firefox and nobody else. It should just work on Firefox; I wouldn't actually expect someone to do "testing" on a research article.
Maybe. On the other hand, the audio tag is pretty standard and the format is standard too, and if you look at w3c support page [1] it looks like ffox supports wav files (and it does, just not all of them. And they might just have tested if the first file plays (or even the second). I would say it's a firefox "bug" instead, there's not a good reason not to support this wav format.
And I say that as a Firefox user that never betrayed the fox for that shiny metallic look.
Especially since firefox probably ought to be using the underlying OS libraries for media decoding (and on windows, mac, and linux all the major libraries support this format).
Firefoxes "we need to invent it ourself so we aren't at the whim of the platform" has bitten them here.
Also, a patch to support this format is probably only 10 lines of code... Simply a for loop over every sample converting to 16 bit PCM.
They might not have tested it at all. It's just a blog post after all. Plenty of blog posts get published with broken links or duplicate paragraphs and basically anything else that isn't immediately obvious at a glance. Being published on a Google domain doesn't guarantee that they have a sophisticated testing process to catch these kinds of errors even in Chrome.
