|
Home > Archive > Mozilla Browser > December 2006 > Can I disable ALL sounds in Firefox?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Can I disable ALL sounds in Firefox?
|
|
| Janice P. 2006-12-12, 1:12 pm |
|
I'd like to set Firefox to absolutely ignore any and all embedded sounds,
whether they're played by Firefox or launched to an external player, no
matter, I want all of them blocked permanently. Is it possible?
Take the .mp3 and .wav extensions, for example. When I click Change Action,
I see four choices:
Open them with the default app
Open them with a specified app
Save them to the hard drive
Use a plugin
Why not a choice to simply ignore them? I can choose to "Change" the
action, but I can't see how to delete it! In another area, I can choose to
ignore images or go ahead and display them; why not the same for sounds?
Help appreciated!
J.
| |
| Leonidas Jones 2006-12-12, 7:13 pm |
| Janice P. wrote:
> I'd like to set Firefox to absolutely ignore any and all embedded sounds,
> whether they're played by Firefox or launched to an external player, no
> matter, I want all of them blocked permanently. Is it possible?
>
> Take the .mp3 and .wav extensions, for example. When I click Change Action,
> I see four choices:
>
> Open them with the default app
> Open them with a specified app
> Save them to the hard drive
> Use a plugin
>
> Why not a choice to simply ignore them? I can choose to "Change" the
> action, but I can't see how to delete it! In another area, I can choose to
> ignore images or go ahead and display them; why not the same for sounds?
>
> Help appreciated!
>
> J.
>
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Muting_browser
Lee
| |
| John Thompson 2006-12-13, 1:14 am |
| On 2006-12-12, Janice P <none@nowhere.domain> wrote:
> I'd like to set Firefox to absolutely ignore any and all embedded sounds,
> whether they're played by Firefox or launched to an external player, no
> matter, I want all of them blocked permanently. Is it possible?
>
> Take the .mp3 and .wav extensions, for example. When I click Change Action,
> I see four choices:
>
> Open them with the default app
> Open them with a specified app
> Save them to the hard drive
> Use a plugin
>
> Why not a choice to simply ignore them? I can choose to "Change" the
> action, but I can't see how to delete it! In another area, I can choose to
> ignore images or go ahead and display them; why not the same for sounds?
>
> Help appreciated!
Turn down the volume on your speakers?
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-13, 1:14 am |
| On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:40:26 GMT, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> posted:
>http://kb.mozillazine.org/Muting_browser
Thank you, Lee. I've installed it but have yet to see if it works since I
haven't come across an embedded sound yet.
To any Firefox developer programmers who may be watching: I think it's
absurd that you offer a choice to disable embedded images, which are almost
always useful and almost never annoying, but don't offer a choice to disable
embedded sounds, which are almost always annoying and almost never useful.
Perhaps absurd is too strong a word. Perhaps it's just an oversight. Would
you add such a choice to a near future release version, please?
On the embedded images topic: I would find most useful an option, not to
exclude images, but to refuse to animate gifs. Just display the first frame
and leave it at that. I have never seen an animated gif that was important
to the content of the page. Never! Well, never that I can think of. Some
were cute in the past, but today they're mostly spam. I would greatly
appreciate the option to shut them up.
Well, I'm on a roll, how about one more: I love the option to block images
from a certain domain. This is one of the friendliest and most thoughtful
things about Firefox, to me. But it could work better:
abc-server.spam.com <--- Blocking that
def-server.spam.com <--- Does not block that.
So all they do is constantly change the "prefix" domain (I can't think of
the correct word here) and I have to keep constantly blocking abc-server
then def-server then ghi-server and so forth. I would like an option to
block the "root" domain (I can't think of the correct word here, either) so
I didn't have to keep getting nagged by their spam. Offer me the choice in
the context menu to block abc-server.spam.com or block spam.com altogether!
Now that would be a helpful new option!
Overall, I love Firefox. Please keep up the good work.
J.
| |
| Leonidas Jones 2006-12-13, 1:14 am |
| Janice P. wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:40:26 GMT, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> posted:
>
>
> Thank you, Lee. I've installed it but have yet to see if it works since I
> haven't come across an embedded sound yet.
>
> To any Firefox developer programmers who may be watching: I think it's
> absurd that you offer a choice to disable embedded images, which are almost
> always useful and almost never annoying, but don't offer a choice to disable
> embedded sounds, which are almost always annoying and almost never useful.
>
> Perhaps absurd is too strong a word. Perhaps it's just an oversight. Would
> you add such a choice to a near future release version, please?
>
> On the embedded images topic: I would find most useful an option, not to
> exclude images, but to refuse to animate gifs. Just display the first frame
> and leave it at that. I have never seen an animated gif that was important
> to the content of the page. Never! Well, never that I can think of. Some
> were cute in the past, but today they're mostly spam. I would greatly
> appreciate the option to shut them up.
>
> Well, I'm on a roll, how about one more: I love the option to block images
> from a certain domain. This is one of the friendliest and most thoughtful
> things about Firefox, to me. But it could work better:
>
> abc-server.spam.com <--- Blocking that
> def-server.spam.com <--- Does not block that.
>
> So all they do is constantly change the "prefix" domain (I can't think of
> the correct word here) and I have to keep constantly blocking abc-server
> then def-server then ghi-server and so forth. I would like an option to
> block the "root" domain (I can't think of the correct word here, either) so
> I didn't have to keep getting nagged by their spam. Offer me the choice in
> the context menu to block abc-server.spam.com or block spam.com altogether!
> Now that would be a helpful new option!
>
> Overall, I love Firefox. Please keep up the good work.
>
> J.
>
Take a look at AdBlock Plus:
http://adblockplus.org/en/
Lee
| |
| Charani 2006-12-13, 7:12 am |
| On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:30:31 -0700, Janice P. wrote:
> To any Firefox developer programmers who may be watching: I think it's
> absurd that you offer a choice to disable embedded images, which are almost
> always useful and almost never annoying, but don't offer a choice to disable
> embedded sounds, which are almost always annoying and almost never useful.
Embedded sounds aren't "almost always annoying and almost never
useful" to everyone so I agree there should be an option to disable
them for those people who do find them annoying.
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-13, 7:12 am |
| On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:31:42 -0600, John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org>
posted:
>On 2006-12-12, Janice P <none@nowhere.domain> wrote:
>
>Turn down the volume on your speakers?
Of course! I should have thought of that! Why should I listen to music I
love on my $200 sound card when I could simply turn off the speakers and
never have to hear my music interrupted by unwelcome and unexpected spam
ever again!
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful advice!
http://tinyurl.com/yg6aup
J.
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-13, 7:12 am |
| On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 04:37:22 GMT, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> posted:
>Take a look at AdBlock Plus:
>
>http://adblockplus.org/en/
I'm looking. Thanks 
J.
| |
| Leonidas Jones 2006-12-13, 7:12 am |
| Janice P. wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:31:42 -0600, John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org>
> posted:
>
>
> Of course! I should have thought of that! Why should I listen to music I
> love on my $200 sound card when I could simply turn off the speakers and
> never have to hear my music interrupted by unwelcome and unexpected spam
> ever again!
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful advice!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yg6aup
>
> J.
>
Good Lord, why react like that?? It was a perfectly reasonable
suggestion, that many, many people follow. Just because it doesn't work
for you is no reason to go off on John.
Lee
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-13, 1:11 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:31:29 GMT, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> posted:
>Good Lord, why react like that??
Must you ask, Lee? Then I'll tell you why: That sarcastic little question
mark at the end, as if to say I was too stupid to have thought of such a
thing. The typing equivalent of adding "Hello? Anyone home? Why don't you
do the OBVIOUS, stupid?"
>It was a perfectly reasonable
>suggestion, that many, many people follow.
How can you be serious?!?!?!! Perfectly reasonable? To simply stop using
sound in my computer, to disable all of the *other* sounds that I welcome,
all the time, just to avoid the spam? Why even have speakers? Why even
have a sound card? Why don't I just stick icepicks in my ears one time and
be done with the problem for life?
>Just because it doesn't work
>for you is no reason to go off on John.
Good grief. Relax. You'd think I dropped a rock on his foot. Be assured,
my snotty little Google message didn't offend him any more than his snotty
little "You are a moron" message offended me.
J.
| |
|
|
| Janice P. 2006-12-13, 1:12 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:38:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> posted:
>http://mozilla.edmullen.net/moz_filetest.html
That is an excellent resource, Ed. Thank you. May I suggest an option for
a tiny three-second MP3 on the main page, and also for a small embedded .wav
file?
I got no audio from the midi file, but I didn't get the little play option
box either. I just got a rectangular outline. I didn't check an mp3 yet
because they're so big for a slow dial-in connection such as mine (the
reason I asked for a tiny one on the main page).
Your page prompted me to finally write a little observation I've been
meaning to voice, but it had to be done with graphics more than words, so I
put it on a free web host. Please look at it and tell me your thoughts:
http://qpowjhfygr.50megs.com/ffprob1.html
J.
| |
| Heavens.To.Murgatroid@gmail.com 2006-12-13, 1:12 pm |
|
Janice P. wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:38:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> posted:
>
>
> That is an excellent resource, Ed. Thank you.
I enjoyed the poopboy.swf. That was great.
| |
| Ed Mullen 2006-12-13, 7:12 pm |
| In-Reply-To: <80g0o2l7vdvfhp2rulvs5c8q543c911h7b@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: < nqqdnUL3nd_0zB3YnZ2dnUVZ_oCmnZ2d@comcast
.com>
Lines: 47
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.99.97.217
X-Trace: sv3-f6n79w1I3TLNcXCjxfT/ FlqIeGLi2qR66o3QXxZXAI0KZmtcJeoOVG6fmFVh
WzBhGPQNLlW1kCeaEse!lt0qbI0PuoU3aFXyLaKZ
4Mf59EknggfqnMJwJnVSAxYXbRVEcxiBNBWBzbjd
rVaFFVn6e3sYsHEC!TFPxIv2suWfWng==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.fan.mozilla:32593
Janice P. wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:38:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> posted:
>
>
> That is an excellent resource, Ed. Thank you. May I suggest an option for
> a tiny three-second MP3 on the main page, and also for a small embedded .wav
> file?
>
> I got no audio from the midi file, but I didn't get the little play option
> box either. I just got a rectangular outline. I didn't check an mp3 yet
> because they're so big for a slow dial-in connection such as mine (the
> reason I asked for a tiny one on the main page).
Small wave and mp3 tests are there now.
> Your page prompted me to finally write a little observation I've been
> meaning to voice, but it had to be done with graphics more than words, so I
> put it on a free web host. Please look at it and tell me your thoughts:
>
> http://qpowjhfygr.50megs.com/ffprob1.html
LOL. Yes, that certainly is one of the pitfalls of specifying your own
page properties. The User Interface can only offer so many options
concerning page styling. You can, however, get much more involved by
using CSS.
On your examples what's happening is that the images used for the menus
are not being loaded because you've over-ridden them with your
preferences. No idea why at this point. Perhaps one of the CSS gurus
will step in and suggest a fix using CSS in Firefox.
Another (obvious) possibility is for me (and other sites) to provide
alternative style sheets from which the user can choose. I could do one
that darkens the background image to suit users who find it too bright.
If I get the time I'll certainly consider that. Shouldn't be too
hard, I just need the time.
And thanks for the nice comments. ;-)
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
If women wear a pair of pants, a pair of glasses, and a pair of
earrings, why don't they wear a pair of bras?
| |
| FoxWolfie Galen 2006-12-13, 7:12 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:31:29 GMT, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
> Janice P. wrote:
>
> Good Lord, why react like that?? It was a perfectly reasonable
> suggestion, that many, many people follow. Just because it doesn't work
> for you is no reason to go off on John.
That's not really an effective solution, unless you plan on taping the
volume control to the zero setting. Forget to turn it down just one time
and you end up regretting it at the most annoying and inconvenient times.
Taping the button in place sort of defeats the purpose of owning speakers
for their many legitimate uses. Have you ever been browsing quietly in the
middle of the night while everyone in the house was asleep, only to have
something start blasting away at high volume, waking everyone in the house
and nearly causing a heart attack due to it's unexpected suddenness. Then,
to make things worse, it turns out to be happening in a tab that doesn't
even have focus, so you have to hunt around for the offending tab while
reaching for the speakers at the same time, hoping to kill it as quickly as
possible. The next day, you decide to play some music and hear nothing,
then, after thinking your player was not working, you realize that you had
turned the sound down the night before.
A different solution, that only affects Firefox, but not other programs is
to filter out *.mid, *.wav and *.swf using AdBlock Plus. This works fairly
well for me, though some sounds end up getting through once every couple
months. I don't want to remove my sound-related plugins, as I might
intentionally want to go to a site to listen to music or to view a flash
file. Nothing is more annoying than browsing eBay and having a dozen tabs
open to different listings, when one of them starts a high volume sales
pitch. Any seller who pulls that stunt on me gets a nice big complaint, and
the promise that I will never bid from them no matter how badly I want
their item. Thankfully, that is rare with my current AdBlock filters.
Firefox could use a new option right under the "automatically load images"
option. It would be "automatically play sounds." Better yet would be that
option with a whitelist for acceptable sites. That way, going to a news
site to play a video would allow the sound to be heard, but all other
non-approved sounds would be forever silenced.
--
FoxWolfie
| |
| FoxWolfie Galen 2006-12-13, 7:12 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:15:54 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
> Janice P. wrote:
>
> Small wave and mp3 tests are there now.
>
>
> LOL. Yes, that certainly is one of the pitfalls of specifying your own
> page properties. The User Interface can only offer so many options
> concerning page styling. You can, however, get much more involved by
> using CSS.
>
> On your examples what's happening is that the images used for the menus
> are not being loaded because you've over-ridden them with your
> preferences. No idea why at this point. Perhaps one of the CSS gurus
> will step in and suggest a fix using CSS in Firefox.
>
> Another (obvious) possibility is for me (and other sites) to provide
> alternative style sheets from which the user can choose. I could do one
> that darkens the background image to suit users who find it too bright.
> If I get the time I'll certainly consider that. Shouldn't be too
> hard, I just need the time.
I am also able to reproduce the OP's situation. When a user sets a
preferred background color, all cells in drop down menus, and cells in
tables become transparent. This flaw can be seen on many pages, which
renders the user's override of colors useless. The proper behavior, in my
opinion, would be to paint menu backgrounds and any table cell backgrounds
in the user's specified background color.
I assume a css script could force all table cells and menus to the
specified background color, but this really seems to be an oversight in the
user-specified color handling. I also have an issue with large areas with
bright backgrounds due to photo-sensitivity in my eyes. Currently, the only
solution is to set the brightness on my monitor lower. This causes images
in most other programs to be too dark, so I can never leave it that way.
--
FoxWolfie
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-13, 7:12 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:15:54 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> posted:
>Small wave and mp3 tests are there now.
Wonderful! I'm delighted to report that midi, wav, and mp3 all remain
silent with that little extension installed
>On your examples what's happening is that the images used for the menus
>are not being loaded because you've over-ridden them with your
>preferences. No idea why at this point. Perhaps one of the CSS gurus
>will step in and suggest a fix using CSS in Firefox.
I know nothing at all about style sheets, but it does seem to me that if
you're able to recognize and define an area to use or ignore a background
jpeg, you should also be able to define that area as a solid color.
>Another (obvious) possibility is for me (and other sites) to provide
>alternative style sheets from which the user can choose.
I can see the occasional friendly individual doing such a thing, but never
the corporate monolith. Their attitude has always been and apparently
always will be "Tough. March in step or go away."
>I could do one
>that darkens the background image to suit users who find it too bright.
>If I get the time I'll certainly consider that. Shouldn't be too
>hard, I just need the time.
Indeed. If you were to do such a thing, I would personally love to see the
opposite extreme: As dark as possible. Black with primarily light green
text. I miss the days of the greenscreen! In the old days all of the
bulletin board software defaulted to a black background. Dos started black
and it's still black. When did this cruel shift to white creep in? People
lean back from their computers and rub their tired eyes and say "My eyes are
burning so bad! I've been at the computer for hours!" ... well DUH! Their
eyes would also be burning if they stared directly into several hundred
watts of bright white light bulbs, which is about the same as several
hundred watts of bright white monitor screen. But a black screen with
moderately colored text is gentle on the eyes! I can be at the computer
sixteen hours straight and not be frazzled at all, while the whitescreen
user is squirting Visine into his eyes after two hours.
>And thanks for the nice comments. ;-)
Oh, you're quite welcome, Ed. It's a fantastic site.
J.
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-13, 7:12 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:54:42 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen <foxwolfie@adelphia.net>
posted:
>The proper behavior, in my
>opinion, would be to paint menu backgrounds and any table cell backgrounds
>in the user's specified background color.
Zackly.
>I also have an issue with large areas with
>bright backgrounds due to photo-sensitivity in my eyes.
And here I thought I was the only person on Earth sitting here in the dark,
surfing the web, wearing sunglasses.
J.
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-13, 7:12 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:50:33 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen <foxwolfie@adelphia.net>
posted:
>Forget to turn it down just one time
>and you end up regretting it at the most
>annoying and inconvenient times.
Hear hear! I just want to reach into the screen and grab the jerk that
embedded that sound and shake him until his teeth rattle.
>Taping the button in place sort of
>defeats the purpose of owning speakers
>for their many legitimate uses.
My point exactly, and I don't believe John was really suggesting something
so stupid, but then, Lee came running to defend him, so I guess anything's
possible.
>Have you ever been browsing quietly in the
>middle of the night while everyone in the
>house was asleep, only to have
>something start blasting away at high volume
Yes, all the time. Or I might be listening to some music or watching a
movie and have it interrupted by some jerk's idea of a funny sound from his
web page. As I said in an earlier post, embedded sounds are almost always
annoying and almost never meaningful. I have never yet come across a single
embedded sound that mattered, that was important, that helped fulfill why I
came to that website, never in all these years, not one.
>Nothing is more annoying than browsing eBay and having a dozen tabs
>open to different listings, when one of them starts a high volume sales
>pitch.
I've written to eBay many times to try and convince them to ban embedded
sounds, but they just ignore me.
>Firefox could use a new option right under the "automatically load images"
>option. It would be "automatically play sounds." Better yet would be that
>option with a whitelist for acceptable sites. That way, going to a news
>site to play a video would allow the sound to be heard, but all other
>non-approved sounds would be forever silenced.
Bingo. We get an option to block images, when they're almost always useful,
but not to block sounds, when they're almost always annoying.
J.
| |
| John Thompson 2006-12-14, 1:13 am |
| On 2006-12-13, Janice P <none@nowhere.domain> wrote:
> On the embedded images topic: I would find most useful an option, not to
> exclude images, but to refuse to animate gifs. Just display the first frame
> and leave it at that. I have never seen an animated gif that was important
> to the content of the page. Never! Well, never that I can think of. Some
> were cute in the past, but today they're mostly spam. I would greatly
> appreciate the option to shut them up.
Privoxy can do that, and much more, for you: http://www.privoxy.org
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
| |
| John Thompson 2006-12-14, 1:13 am |
| On 2006-12-13, Janice P <none@nowhere.domain> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:31:42 -0600, John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org>
> posted:
>
>
> Of course! I should have thought of that! Why should I listen to music I
> love on my $200 sound card when I could simply turn off the speakers and
> never have to hear my music interrupted by unwelcome and unexpected spam
> ever again!
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful advice!
It wasn't meant to be sarcastic at all; in fact it is exactly what I do.
Don't dismiss the obvious out-of-hand.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
| |
| John Thompson 2006-12-14, 1:13 am |
| On 2006-12-13, FoxWolfie Galen <foxwolfie@adelphia.net> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That's not really an effective solution, unless you plan on taping the
> volume control to the zero setting. Forget to turn it down just one time
> and you end up regretting it at the most annoying and inconvenient times.
> Taping the button in place sort of defeats the purpose of owning speakers
> for their many legitimate uses.
Most linux distributions these days seem to have a panel button to mute
the speakers; my laptop (ancient Thinkpad-240) has a function key
combination to do this. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows hd a similar
option someplace. When I get a noise I don't want, it is no great burden
to click the mute button or keypress.
> Have you ever been browsing quietly in the
> middle of the night while everyone in the house was asleep, only to have
> something start blasting away at high volume, waking everyone in the house
> and nearly causing a heart attack due to it's unexpected suddenness.
No. When browsing quitely in the middle of the night I generally take
care to enable the mute function from the start. Or plug in headphones.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
| |
| FoxWolfie Galen 2006-12-14, 7:23 am |
| On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:24:55 -0700, Janice P. <none@nowhere.domain> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:50:33 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen <foxwolfie@adelphia.net>
> posted:
>
>
> Yes, all the time. Or I might be listening to some music or watching a
> movie and have it interrupted by some jerk's idea of a funny sound from
> his web page. As I said in an earlier post, embedded sounds are almost
> always annoying and almost never meaningful. I have never yet come across
> a single embedded sound that mattered, that was important, that helped
> fulfill why I came to that website, never in all these years, not one.
That's probably why they're embedded. The content is rarely something that
a user would purposely click on, so site owners think they must force it on
people. This is totally different than sites with videos or music links
that require the user to select them. In those cases, the user selects them
because they are desirable.
>
> I've written to eBay many times to try and convince them to ban embedded
> sounds, but they just ignore me.
I've had a couple sellers try to argue with me and say that the embedded
sounds and flash animations on their eBay pages attract many more buyers.
The odd thing is that I've talked with many eBay buyers, and excessive
animations and sounds are one of their biggest turn-offs to a seller's
page. Many user's simply won't bother to buy from sellers if their pages
are annoying to use. I solved the flash and animated gif problem on eBay by
putting
*ebay.com/*.swf
in my AdBlock filters. That alone kills 99.9 percent of the flash
animations on eBay. They are almost always from sellers forcing people to
view their other items - whether they want to or not. I know where the
"view sellers other items" link is, if I want to use it. This also blocks
the flash animations that talk and play music or other sounds. Another good
thing is that I don't end up with 20 different flash files running in
different tabs, which often brings Firefox to a crawl. For gif animations,
I just set the about :config entry for image.animation_mode to once. That
way, gifs cycle through an animation just once then stop. It speeds up
Firefox on pages where there are dozens of animated images. You can set
that to none, once, or normal.
>
> Bingo. We get an option to block images, when they're almost always
> useful, but not to block sounds, when they're almost always annoying.
It seems that forced sounds are rarely content, and almost always spammy in
nature. The same seems to apply to most animated images, and flash files
that auto play. Most actual useful content has to be clicked on and
initiated by the user. If something is already moving or making sounds when
you arrive on a page, and prior to any user activity, it is almost
guaranteed to be either spam, or an ad.
If only the web could once again be as spam-free and fast as it was ten
years ago. I started browsing with netscape 1.1N back at the beginning of
1994. Mosaic was the only other choice that actually worked on most sites
at the time. Even on a 56k modem, the web was quite fast. There were no ads
and no spam. Sites didn't make sounds, even though netscape could play
midi, au, and wave with a plugin. There were almost no commercial sites on
the web, which have become some of the worst around. Porn sites back then
didn't even have spam! They were totally free with no advertising.
Everything was personal stuff from other users with a genuine interest in
their little piece of the web. Search engines found actual content almost
instantly, and on the first page, rather than making users wade through
pages of unwanted junk. It's so sad to realize that even with broadband,
pages come up much slower now than they did with a dialup modem ten years
ago. So much for progress. It probably helped that when I first used a
browser, there were only something like 4,000 total websites in existence
in the world! Within months, that number passed 40,000 and just kept
accelerating.
Currently, Firefox is the closest browser we have to allowing users to
browse the way they want, without the ads, spam, popups, etc, that plague
the web. It even allows for killing most of the sounds and other
annoyances, but they don't make it very easy for beginners to adjust some
of these things. I have mine set up mostly as I want, but it took lots of
google searching, looking through these groups and the mozilla site, and a
few accumulated years, just to get Firefox the way I preferred. Starting to
learn some css has been helpful too. Of course, most users are not going to
make the efforts to learn so much. If they can't make it work the way they
like from within the program's interface, they will simply try with other
browsers, like IE or Opera. The main problem I see for beginners is a lack
of easy to change options in the browser's interface. Firefox is infinitely
customizable, but the average user simply won't venture outside the
built-in interface for changing anything. They are forced to use it in ways
that are not always suitable for their needs. The new tabs is a good
example. How many new people have had to be told how to remove the close
buttons using about :config, or how to kill the tab drop down box by editing
css files. How many had to have special instructions for removing the go
buttons, or to enable spell-checking in single-line text boxes? All of
those are basic options that should be made available via checkboxes on the
option screens. Firefox is such a wonderful and capable browser, but it's
true power is hidden from most average users who often want to make simple
ergonomic changes so it can be easier for them to use. Having a kill
embedded sounds option would definitely benefit many people I know. Maybe
it could kill any sound that was not initiated by a direct mouse click or
press of the enter key.
--
FoxWolfie
| |
| FoxWolfie Galen 2006-12-14, 7:23 am |
| On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:10:07 -0600, John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org>
wrote:
> On 2006-12-13, FoxWolfie Galen <foxwolfie@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Most linux distributions these days seem to have a panel button to mute
> the speakers; my laptop (ancient Thinkpad-240) has a function key
> combination to do this. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows hd a similar
> option someplace. When I get a noise I don't want, it is no great burden
> to click the mute button or keypress.
Windows does have a task tray icon for muting or changing the volume. That
would not solve the problem for the OP who stated that he might be
purposely listening to music, and he does not want the browser making
sounds over that music. If I am playing an mp3 file, and the browser
happens to make sound of it's own, those sounds will often be louder than
the music that is playing, and quite annoying. In my case, I sometimes have
a TV channel playing through my computer speakers. If I get a sudden loud
talking ad in Firefox, it masks the dialog from the TV show I was listening
to. Not everyone wants to block all flash movies and remove their midi and
wave plugins just to keep the browser silent while listening to other
material.
>
> No. When browsing quitely in the middle of the night I generally take
> care to enable the mute function from the start. Or plug in headphones.
That blocks all sound, even those that are desired. I often like to have
quiet music playing, but without the browser walking over it at max volume.
It seems that many sites that embed sound also know how to crank it out at
50 times the volume of whatever else is currently playing at the time. That
is partly why it is so darned annoying. Going into the mixer settings can
sometimes reduce the sound of the browser compared to what else is playing,
but finding the mixer device that a particular embedded file is using is
not always reproducible. One time they pipe it across the wave device,
Another time it comes through on aux, midi, fm, etc. I really don't like to
adjust the individual sound devices relative to each other, as they are
currently set so that anything I do intentionally is of a similar volume.
In other words, I like to leave it set so that when I play a CD, an mp3, a
midi, or a game with FM sound, they are all at about the same level. This
is especially useful if I should decide to record something. I can know
that the volumes are at least close regardless of the source, even if I'm
in a hurry. Having to turn some down or off for the browser has negative
side effects when I want to play a sound later on in some other
application. Worse yet, sometimes the browser sound will come across the
same mixer channel that is already playing my own music, but at a much
higher volume. If I turn that down, my music naturally goes down with it.
The only solution is to kill the sounds from within Firefox. Right now,
adblock filters take care of 99.9 percent of the unwanted sounds, but some
still sneak through on certain occasions. I know I can pull all the default
sound plugins from the browser. That would break things for when I wanted
to play something though. Perhaps I might want to listen to a sample track
from a CD that I'm wanting to buy from Amazon or something. I want the
sounds then, because I am purposely clicking on them. I do not want any
embedded sounds or anything that could potentially auto play. I only want
to hear sounds or to play videos as the result of a purposeful mouse click
on my part. I *never* want such material pushed or forced to play on me
simply as a result of loading a page. We can control our fonts, colors,
cookies, javascript, images, plugins, etc. Why can't we have the same level
of control over forced embedded sounds? Filters work most of the time, but
they fail often enough to be a problem, especially when people discover new
ways to get around the common filters. Sound pushers are no better than
spam pushers. Their drugs are not wanted here!
--
FoxWolfie
| |
| FoxWolfie Galen 2006-12-14, 1:13 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:24:54 -0700, Janice P. <none@nowhere.domain> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:54:42 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen <foxwolfie@adelphia.net>
> posted:
>
>
> Zackly.
>
>
> And here I thought I was the only person on Earth sitting here in the
> dark, surfing the web, wearing sunglasses.
I personally know several people with various visual disabilities. Most
require larger than normal text in order to read easily. It's another area
where you really have to fight with Firefox over. Unlike other browsers,
Firefox doesn't seem to cope well with larger than average fonts. It often
display test across images and beyond table boundaries. Often the only
solution is to go to the view menu and set the page style to none. This
often renders pages that rely heavily on styles unusable. Try to read and
of the many TV or satellite listing sites with styles turned off. They are
simple no useable that way. With the style set to the default basic style,
large text overflows table cells and overwrites other text so badly that
Firefox simply can't be used on those sights by people who require large
text. Users naturally try IE or Opera, which displays them without a
problem. The only solution in Firefox is to Ctrl- until the fonts are too
small to read, then use a magnifying lens to read the screen. Needless to
say, Firefox is not always the browser of choice for some people with
vision problems. Luckily for me, I only need my text to be slightly larger
than average, so it doesn't break as many pages.
The transparent menu and table problems don't occur in IE if you choose
your own colors. I have not tried in Opera though, as I never could get it
to run for more than 20 minutes on any system without crashing, so I don't
have it installed at the moment. One thing Firefox has got in it's favor is
that I can't recall it ever crashing on any system I've tried it on -
except when repeatedly trying different themes, one after the other. I
blamed that on bad themes at the time though, since Firefox is so perfectly
stable at all other times.
Even with it's faults, Firefox has been my preferred browser since it was
called Phoenix. Then it became FireBird, then FireFox. I think I started
around version 0.4. Prior to that, I used netscape 4.8. Firefox 0.9x had a
weird stalling issue that acted as if it would hang for about 15 seconds at
the start of most webpages. That's when I discovered that my copy of
Netscape 4.8 was no longer good to use. It started crashing on half the
javascript sites I tried. They'd updated javascript in that time. I was
stuck with Firefox, as I hated IE in most every way. Luckily, Firefox was
being update something like every few weeks and when I downloaded the
release candidate for 1.0, the hanging problem vanished. Generally,
everything's been improving with Firefox since then - except for some
disagreeable ergonomic changes with the tabs in 2.0. Those problems were
quickly resolved though.
The only real weaknesses I currently see in Firefox are some rendering
issues for people with large text and the lack of an ability to use your
own colors with some pages with pull-down menus or certain table
configurations, as it fails to paint the user's chosen background color in
the menus and tables, but uses transparent instead. Then there's the lack
of easy to access customization features for the ergonomic use of the
browser from within the options interface - the tab appearance and close
button being the main issue. Just as some people are right handed or left
handed, some are geared towards multiple close buttons and others toward
just one at a fixed location on the tab bar. Simple ergonomic choices like
that should always be available as an easy to find option. Things like this
can only help to keep Firefox far ahead of other browsers.
--
FoxWolfie
| |
| Ed Mullen 2006-12-15, 1:13 am |
| Janice P. wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:15:54 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> posted:
>
>
> Wonderful! I'm delighted to report that midi, wav, and mp3 all remain
> silent with that little extension installed
>
>
> I know nothing at all about style sheets, but it does seem to me that if
> you're able to recognize and define an area to use or ignore a background
> jpeg, you should also be able to define that area as a solid color.
Anything is possible ... for a price. It's a no-cost option to imagine
what /could/ be possibly done and another to realize it into existence.
Not arguing against there being faults in CSS, HTML, W3C and browser
standards, just reacting to the implication that /doing/ what you say is
easy. My mention of CSS (style sheets) was because it is a way that
Mozilla-based browsers allow the user to control the presentation of
things in the browser. It takes a lot of learning and some skill to
employ but the facility is there to take advantage of.
>
> I can see the occasional friendly individual doing such a thing, but never
> the corporate monolith. Their attitude has always been and apparently
> always will be "Tough. March in step or go away."
>
>
> Indeed. If you were to do such a thing, I would personally love to see the
> opposite extreme: As dark as possible. Black with primarily light green
> text. I miss the days of the greenscreen! In the old days all of the
> bulletin board software defaulted to a black background. Dos started black
> and it's still black. When did this cruel shift to white creep in?
When displays became capable of producing a wide enough contrast ratio
to mimic paper, which is, after all, the original that computers try to
reproduce.
> People lean back from their computers and rub their tired eyes and say "My eyes are
> burning so bad! I've been at the computer for hours!" ... well DUH! Their
> eyes would also be burning if they stared directly into several hundred
> watts of bright white light bulbs, which is about the same as several
> hundred watts of bright white monitor screen. But a black screen with
> moderately colored text is gentle on the eyes! I can be at the computer
> sixteen hours straight and not be frazzled at all, while the whitescreen
> user is squirting Visine into his eyes after two hours.
Well, your preferences are interesting. I'm 56 and wear glasses,
separate ones for computing, "regular" ones for all else. I frequently
have to increase text size on Web sites but I do not share your contrast
sensitivity. Nor do I share your affinity for green screens, despite
having been raised on them (computing wise). <g> I prefer black text on
white background, like a book. And neither my LCD panels nor my CRTs
produce anywhere near the amount of light even a 60 watt light bulb
does! This may be representative of the situation for you but I can't
help but take exception to the characterization on a logical basis. And
I sit in front of this screen on an average of (I'm guessing) 10 hours a
day. And I've been doing that for ... uh ... sheesh, 20+ years.
But the interesting thing, to me, about this is the question of: Where
would a Web site designer start to create alternative style sheets? I
mean, you like low-contrast, black background, light green text. Others
might like the paper analogy, as I do. Still others might prefer the
reverse: White text on a black background. I'm sure I could find
others who would better like a myriad of other combinations. While I'd
love to accommodate everyone, it's a hobby for me and there are only so
many hours in the day. Not to mention that it's a losing proposition;
to borrow from Abe Lincoln:
/You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people
all the time, but you cannot please all the people all the time./
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Just for today, I will not sit in my living room all day in my
underwear. Instead, I will move my computer into the bedroom.
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-15, 1:13 am |
| On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:47:23 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> posted:
>
>When displays became capable of producing a wide enough contrast ratio
>to mimic paper, which is, after all, the original that computers try to
>reproduce.
Indeed.
>I prefer black text on white background, like a book.
I have heard the book analogy before. My reply is that a book is reflected
light, while a monitor is transmitted light. With a monitor, you're looking
directly into the source. There is a great deal of difference!
>And neither my LCD panels nor my CRTs
>produce anywhere near the amount of light even a 60 watt light bulb
>does!
In a darkened room with a black screen, when a white background suddenly
comes up it's like looking into an airplane landing light.
>Where would a Web site designer start to create alternative style sheets?
Tough call. I know nothing about how they work, but my first guess is to
ask once then plant a cookie, then look to that cookie for guidance next
time I visit.
>/You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people
>all the time, but you cannot please all the people all the time./
I know I'll never see a solution in my lifetime, so long as the rest of the
world likes lime green on purple
At the very least, though, it would be nice for the Firefox programmers to
deal with this problem of transparency.
J.
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-15, 1:13 am |
| On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:55:54 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen <foxwolfie@adelphia.net>
posted:
>I personally know several people with various visual disabilities. Most
>require larger than normal text in order to read easily. It's another area
>where you really have to fight with Firefox over.
And Windows, too. It's easy to enlarge text that never changes, like the
text in the title bar of a window, and even in many other areas, but there's
no way to enlarge the smallest text, for example in the Explorer status bar.
Gates set that system font size back in the 640 x 480 days and lacked the
foresight to allow for ever making it any bigger as resolutions got higher,
and now it's too late. Thousands of apps use it and depend on it and if you
do manage to override it with a larger font, those apps simply display the
part of the text that fits and truncate the rest. So Gates now throws in a
free magnifying glass that is guaranteed to induce motion sickness when used
extensively.
>The transparent menu and table problems don't occur in IE if you choose
>your own colors.
Wow. Impressive. But still not enough to send me to IE, which I have never
used regularly and never will. I'd leave the Internet first. But thanks to
Firefox I don't think that will have to happen
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-15, 1:13 am |
| On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:02:42 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen <foxwolfie@adelphia.net>
posted:
>On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:10:07 -0600, John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org>
>wrote:
Wow. I guess you really are serious. What an unthinkable solution.
Killing the unwanted sound also kills all of the wanted sounds. I find it
staggering that an intelligent person could seriously offer this sniveling,
subservient behavior as a legitimate solution. Not to mention that by the
time the blast has happened and the mute button is reached, the damage is
already done. Oh, wait, maybe I should just surf in silence for the rest of
my life. I keep forgetting which of the two unthinkable "solutions" is
preferred.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>In my case, I sometimes have
>a TV channel playing through my computer speakers.
Exactly. Or a CD playing in my computer drive. Or a friend or family
member talking to me! Good grief.
>If I get a sudden loud
>talking ad in Firefox, it masks the
>dialog from the TV show I was listening to.
How sad that you sit there in total silence rather than enjoy a movie or
some music or a streaming news report. Sadder still is that you would
inflict this behavior on others.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Or plug in headphones.
Now I really do pity you. Those of us with families in the house do not
care to isolate ourselves from them by wearing headphones, nor set such an
example for our children.
>That blocks all sound, even those that are desired.
Exactly my point from the start. We're going in circles with this guy.
>I know I can pull all the default
>sound plugins from the browser.
I'd be willing to do that. How?
>Perhaps I might want to listen to a sample track
>from a CD that I'm wanting to buy from Amazon or something.
Perhaps. I'd be willing to download and launch them manually. I don't even
want my browser doing that for me.
>I only want
>to hear sounds or to play videos as the result of a purposeful mouse click
>on my part. I *never* want such material pushed or forced to play on me
>simply as a result of loading a page.
Hear hear. Firefox programmers, can you hear?
>Sound pushers are no better than
>spam pushers. Their drugs are not wanted here!
Well said.
J.
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-15, 1:13 am |
| On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:22:39 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen <foxwolfie@adelphia.net>
posted:
>That alone kills 99.9 percent of the flash
>animations on eBay.
Well, I personally don't have Flash installed in my Firefox, and never will.
When I just absolutely have to enable Flash to get past some jerk
programmer, I use netscape 7, and then jump back to Firefox as soon as
possible.
>For gif animations,
>I just set the about :config entry for image.animation_mode to once.
That worked! You are my hero of the day!
>If only the web could once again be as spam-free and fast as it was ten
>years ago.
If only. But that's like asking television to go back to the days of only
three minutes of commercials per hour, instead of the twenty minutes
inflicted now. It's simply not going to happen.
>when I first used a
>browser, there were only something like 4,000 total websites in existence
>in the world!
How about before that, in the BBS days? Those were the days. I had (and
still have) what I think is the fastest modem ever made for the Commodore
64, a 2400 baud. I remember feeling faint when the new Amiga allowed an
optional 9600 baud modem!
>Currently, Firefox is the closest browser we have to allowing users to
>browse the way they want
I agree, and I hope they keep improving it.
>The main problem I see for beginners is a lack
>of easy to change options in the browser's interface.
That's my very problem. I'm new to this and learning all of this tweaking
takes a great deal of time.
>Maybe it could kill any sound that was not initiated by a
>direct mouse click or press of the enter key.
Maybe. That would sure be nice.
J.
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-15, 1:13 am |
| On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:55:49 -0600, John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org>
posted:
>On 2006-12-13, Janice P <none@nowhere.domain> wrote:
>
>
>Privoxy can do that, and much more, for you: http://www.privoxy.org
Or as Foxwolfie mentioned, it can be done with about :config
J.
| |
| FoxWolfie Galen 2006-12-15, 7:13 am |
| On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:33:04 -0700, Janice P. <none@nowhere.domain> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:22:39 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen <foxwolfie@adelphia.net>
> posted:
>
>
> Well, I personally don't have Flash installed in my Firefox, and never
> will. When I just absolutely have to enable Flash to get past some jerk
> programmer, I use netscape 7, and then jump back to Firefox as soon as
> possible.
I think I've only encountered two sites in my life where I actually wanted
to leave flash enabled. Both offered short videos in that format - one of
those being the "This Land Is Your Land" comedy video from jibjab.com. It's
many years later now, and I notice that none of their stuff is free any
more.
>
> If only. But that's like asking television to go back to the days of only
> three minutes of commercials per hour, instead of the twenty minutes
> inflicted now. It's simply not going to happen.
It is almost that bad now. I timed a few hour-long shows and it generally
comes out to 42 to 44 minutes of program content per hour. By contrast,
must hour-long shows from the 1960s were 51 to 53 minutes of content per
hour. So, whenever we watch any re-runs from the 1960s, we are missing an
average of nine minutes from every hour-long show! Some TV channels use
time compression in order to give us an extra minute or two of original
content, but a lot is just cut out entirely.
Like the web, they've figured out how to hit us with even more commercials
than just those nine extra minutes. Notice how almost no current program is
without those annoying moving banner ads placed over the programs while
they are playing. They think it will make them more money. Well, they do it
on the web, and most of us use popup blockers and AdBlock software. They
did it on my TV, and I dropped my cable! I've been without cable for a few
years now, mainly because they kept charging more and more to see less and
less actual program content. They wanted me to pay to see more advertising!
>
> How about before that, in the BBS days? Those were the days. I had (and
> still have) what I think is the fastest modem ever made for the Commodore
> 64, a 2400 baud. I remember feeling faint when the new Amiga allowed an
> optional 9600 baud modem!
I first went online in 1981 with an acoustic coupled 150-baud modem! That
soon turned into 300, then 1200, then 2400, then I jumped to 14.4. Even
though I started with only 150, access to the college mainframe was only at
75-baud from an outside line. I don't think many people can imagine just
how slow that was. It would actually take about 30-seconds for a single
screen of text characters to transmit. There were basically no graphics,
unless you counted some high ASCII box and line characters, which many
systems couldn't even see. One could easily read or type faster than the
data could be transmitted.
>
> That's my very problem. I'm new to this and learning all of this tweaking
> takes a great deal of time.
I think life with Firefox is always going to be that way. Because it's open
source, anyone can do most anything they want with it. This all depends on
what a person is willing to learn, and the time they are willing to take.
It definitely not as easy for beginners as it could be. From talking with
other beginners, most of which still use IE, their main reason for not
switching to Firefox is because they discover that "it's too hard." A lot
of this could be avoided if new users didn't have to constantly dive into
about :config to change things that should be on the options screens in the
first place.
I personally have no trouble with about :config, though I think a single
central database for all the entry information would be nice. When you go
into about :config, a line should appear with a link to an info page that
shows the meanings and possible values for all entries. There should also
be two modes - normal and advanced. Normal mode would simply hide any
entries that would most likely break things if they were set wrong. Stuff
like timing values and such would be among those. Setting it to advanced
would show everything, for those of us who know better than to go changing
everything at random. Clicking the advanced option could give a warning
that improper changing of these entries could stop the browser from
working.
--
FoxWolfie
| |
| FoxWolfie Galen 2006-12-15, 7:13 am |
| On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:33:03 -0700, Janice P. <none@nowhere.domain> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:02:42 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen <foxwolfie@adelphia.net>
> posted:
>
>
> I'd be willing to do that. How?
Before doing anything, be sure to always have backups of both your Firefox
program directory and also any profile directories.
I haven't actually done this, but all of the plugins should be under
Firefox's program directory in a folder called plugins. Type about :plugins
into the location bar and see if you can figure out which plugins are
responsible for playing the types of files you don't want to hear from
inside the browser. I figure that would most likely be .mid, .midi, .wav,
..wave, and .mp3. Remember the name of the plugin and close Firefox. Got to
the plugin directory and rename the plugin to something else. (You can
always rename it back if something goes wrong.) For example, if you think
the plugin is called npaudio.dll, then rename it to npaudio.disabled-dll.
Restart Firefox and see if you gives you any problems, or if it
successfully kills the sounds.
The only problem I can think of with this is that every time you go to a
page with embedded audio, you might get a bar at the top of the browser
page saying that additional plugins are required to view the media on the
page. I can't say for sure, because I haven't tried that method yet. I just
have the *.mid, *.wav, etc, in my AdBlock filters, which seems to stop most
of them, but which is still easy to turn back on if I go to a page where I
want to download music.
>
> Perhaps. I'd be willing to download and launch them manually. I don't even want my browser doing that for me.
If you are using Firefox 2.0, go to Tools -> Options -> Content. Go to the
File Types area and click the Manage button. Look through what is listed
there and see if there are any audio types. If so, set them to Save to
disk, it you want that to happen. If you want it to ask each time, remove
the action entirely. Not all file types will be listed, and there seems to
be no option to simply ignore a type. I have mine set so that if I click on
an .mp3, .mpg, .avi, .wmv, etc, it just saves it to disk. If I click on a
massively large mpeg movie, I don't want it trying to auto play in the
browser. I don't even want it launching a dedicated player. If I click on
something, that means I want to download it for later use. At no time do I
ever want a browser to launch any media for me. Downloading is ok, but
launching would drive me nuts, as I have limited system resources. If I
make a mistake, I can always cancel a download and erase what I got.
--
FoxWolfie
| |
| FoxWolfie Galen 2006-12-15, 7:13 am |
| On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:33:02 -0700, Janice P. <none@nowhere.domain> wrote:
> And Windows, too. It's easy to enlarge text that never changes, like the
> text in the title bar of a window, and even in many other areas, but
> there's no way to enlarge the smallest text, for example in the Explorer
> status bar. Gates set that system font size back in the 640 x 480 days
> and lacked the foresight to allow for ever making it any bigger as
> resolutions got higher, and now it's too late.
The is what the "large fonts" setting changes in the advanced video
options. The problem with that is some program will not display properly if
that is used, and all the large fonts setting does is set the system font
to 125 percent of normal size. That means it looks the same size in 800x600
with large fonts turned on, as 640x480 did with normal fonts.
> Thousands of apps use it and depend on it and if you do manage to override
> it with a larger font, those apps simply display the part of the text that
> fits and truncate the rest. So Gates now throws in a free magnifying glass
> that is guaranteed to induce motion sickness when used extensively.
Some of this is the fault of applications programmers. If a person chooses
the large fonts setting, which has been in every version of Windows I know
of since 3.0, their applications should display properly without truncated
fonts and other issues. The problem is that many programmers never test
their applications at various resolutions and font sizes. I am a user of
the large fonts setting, because I simply can't read the Windows system
font without it. I have to tolerate overlapping test and truncated fonts in
a small handful of programs as a result. There is also a custom fonts
setting in Windows. This is required if a person wants to keep the system
fonts readable at even higher resolutions than 800x600.
Here are some common video modes and the custom font settings that are
required to keep the system font appearing the same size as it does in
640x480 mode. This happens to be close to the smallest size I can read on a
19-inch monitor.
640x480 100% same as (Normal fonts)
800x600 125% same as (large fonts)
960x720 150%
1024x768 160%
1152x864 180%
1280x960 200%
1600x1200 250%
1920x1440 300%
2048x1536 320%
2560x1920 400%
I currently use 1024x768 with my system fonts set to 150 percent. This
results in the system font being almost, but not quite as large as it
normally appears in 640x480 mode. About 95 percent of programs support this
size, though they might suffer from slight cosmetic issues like slightly
truncated words on buttons and text leaking beyond some borders.
>
> Wow. Impressive. But still not enough to send me to IE, which I have
> never used regularly and never will. I'd leave the Internet first. But
> thanks to Firefox I don't think that will have to happen
Not too many people are using those types of drop down menus, so it's not a
problem on most sites. Unfortunately, since it those sites aren't yet that
common, and very few of use have our Firefox set to override colors, the
problem might exist for a while. It could disappear in Firefox 3.0 though.
--
FoxWolfie
| |
| FoxWolfie Galen 2006-12-15, 1:12 pm |
| On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:47:23 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
> Janice P. wrote:
>
> When displays became capable of producing a wide enough contrast ratio
> to mimic paper, which is, after all, the original that computers try to
> reproduce.
You are probably right. I noticed many word processors went to a default
white background about the time that VGA monitors where appearing in every
home. That's about the time when Windows 3.x was starting to show up on
everyone's system. Real paper though is never nearly as bright as what is
typically displayed on a monitor - at least not in most situations. If you
are in a very bright environment, like some work places, paper might
actually look very bright from excessive reflected light, but long periods
of reading it that way gives many people headaches. At home, under normal
lighting, paper simply isn't bright enough to cause as much of a problem.
I have my monitor a bit dimmer than most people prefer, yet, if I hold a
white sheet of paper up next to it, the paper looks much darker than the
monitor. This is in a room where the average person can read comfortably
with no additional lighting.
>
> Well, your preferences are interesting. I'm 56 and wear glasses,
> separate ones for computing, "regular" ones for all else. I frequently
> have to increase text size on Web sites but I do not share your contrast
> sensitivity. Nor do I share your affinity for green screens, despite
> having been raised on them (computing wise). <g> I prefer black text on
> white background, like a book.
For me, I seem to have settled on a gray background with black text. I also
find the standard DOS colors of medium white on a black background to be
easily readable. I gave up many years ago trying to configure Windows to
use a black background. Too many programs are hard coded to force black
text, making them unusable - so, I settled for a gray background, which
knocked the contrast down to a comfortable level. In the end, I actually
like it better than black.
> But the interesting thing, to me, about this is the question of: Where
> would a Web site designer start to create alternative style sheets? I
> mean, you like low-contrast, black background, light green text. Others
> might like the paper analogy, as I do. Still others might prefer the
> reverse: White text on a black background.
I think the problem is entirely avoided if users are fully able to set
their own preferences. It doesn't matter what color a designer makes their
web pages, as long as individual users can still get to see the colors as
they choose. You could never make enough page styles to satisfy everyone,
and even if you did, it would only affect your own pages.
Right now, Firefox is mostly configurable to allow us to see pages in our
own preferred or required colors and sizes. The transparent menu
backgrounds is definitely a problem on some pages for people that need to
use their own colors. That's not the fault of page designers or users
though. It appears to be an oversight in Firefox. If your page code
validates with no errors, Firefox should be able to view it properly, even
if a user specifies his own preferred colors. If it doesn't, that is a bug
in Firefox that needs to be fixed.
--
FoxWolfie
| |
| FoxWolfie Galen 2006-12-15, 1:12 pm |
| On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:33:01 -0700, Janice P. <none@nowhere.domain> wrote:
> I know I'll never see a solution in my lifetime, so long as the rest of
> the world likes lime green on purple
Yuck! It sounds like yet another color combination that Kelloggs will
probably use for icing on their Pop Tarts!
--
FoxWolfie
| |
| Leonidas Jones 2006-12-15, 1:12 pm |
| Janice P. wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:02:42 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen <foxwolfie@adelphia.net>
> posted:
>
>
>
> Wow. I guess you really are serious. What an unthinkable solution.
> Killing the unwanted sound also kills all of the wanted sounds. I find it
> staggering that an intelligent person could seriously offer this sniveling,
> subservient behavior as a legitimate solution. Not to mention that by the
> time the blast has happened and the mute button is reached, the damage is
> already done. Oh, wait, maybe I should just surf in silence for the rest of
> my life. I keep forgetting which of the two unthinkable "solutions" is
> preferred.
>
>
> Exactly. Or a CD playing in my computer drive. Or a friend or family
> member talking to me! Good grief.
>
>
>
> How sad that you sit there in total silence rather than enjoy a movie or
> some music or a streaming news report. Sadder still is that you would
> inflict this behavior on others.
>
>
> Now I really do pity you. Those of us with families in the house do not
> care to isolate ourselves from them by wearing headphones, nor set such an
> example for our children.
/snip/
I doubt that this response will accomplish anything, but I find your
responses nothing short of amazing. Someone (John), with good
intentions, who uses his computer differently (not incorrectly,
differently) then you, makes a valid suggestion, that happens not to
work for you. Rather then responding politely that the suggestion will
not work for you, you rip into him in an insulting manner.
"sniveling, subservient"
That is completely uncalled for.
Personally, I leave my speakers on, but for 85% of the work do, I might
as well, and it would no problem just to turn them on when I need them.
Yes, I enjoy watching movies in my home. I do so with my wife, in our
comfortable living room, with a dvd player and surround sound speakers.
I cannot imagine why someone would want to watch a movie on a computer.
You do though, and I am not going to insult you for it.
Yes, I talk to family and friends. I have a telephone for the purpose.
I even have one in my computer room. My personal preference is to talk
on a handset, it feels more intimate. You prefer your computer
speakers, and I am not going to insult you for it.
"Now I really do pity you"
You pity John and me because we use our computers for work most of the
time, rather then as entertainment centers? Heck I will get some
entertainment from it too, but when I'm working the sound is a
distraction. You don't find that true, fine. I don't pity you for
operating in way that works for you..
No one is trying to get you to operate differently then you do. A simple
suggestion was made. All you needed to do was say "sorry, I listen to
music on my cd drive while working." Fine, then we're on to addressing
your needs.
I interact with a lot of people whom I have never met in newsgroups. I
have always made an effort to remain courteous and respectful to others.
I guess not everyone feels that way. Its too bad, because the world
could be a much better place.
Lee
| |
| John Thompson 2006-12-15, 7:12 pm |
| On 2006-12-15, Janice P <none@nowhere.domain> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> How sad that you sit there in total silence rather than enjoy a movie or
> some music or a streaming news report.
It's no problem to me. I like silence.
> Sadder still is that you would inflict this behavior on others.
How did I inflict my solution on others? You asked a question; I
provided an answer. It's up to you to decide whether or not to implement
it.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Now I really do pity you. Those of us with families in the house do not
> care to isolate ourselves from them by wearing headphones, nor set such an
> example for our children.
Well, browsing quitely in the middle of the night when the family is
asleep I see it as common courtesy to not wake others with my late night
habits. When your family is awake do you isolate yourself in front of a
computer to listen to music or watch a movie as you suggest above?
If you're going to be judgemental. perhaps you should spend more time
interacting with your family while they're awake instad of plugged in
to your computer, eh?
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-17, 7:12 am |
| On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:24:00 GMT, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> posted:
>I doubt that this response will accomplish anything, but I find your
>responses nothing short of amazing.
Back at you. This is the second time you've seen fit to stick your nose in
and come running to John's defense.
J.
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-17, 7:12 am |
| On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:43:07 -0600, John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org>
posted:
>You asked a question; I provided an answer.
You provided an answer, yes... with a snotty little question mark for
emphasis.
>perhaps you should spend more time
>interacting with your family while
>hey're awake instad of plugged in
>to your computer, eh?
Yawn. I *work* at my computer. At home. Now when I'm sitting listening to
some gentle music as I work, my daughter can come by and ask where I put the
band-aids without the need to tap on my head to get my attention away from
my headphones.
Whatever. I still say that when a person comes in to this newsgroup to ask
about how to avoid all *unwanted* sounds, it's rude and sarcastic to tell
her to turn off her speakers. No matter if that's how you choose to deal
with it, and especially when you wrap it in a "Why didn't you think of THIS
brilliant and obvious solution, stupid?" package.
Nevertheless, I apologize for the nasty link I posted. Sincerely.
Can we move on now?
J.
| |
| Janice P. 2006-12-17, 7:12 am |
| On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 07:35:01 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen <foxwolfie@adelphia.net>
posted:
>One could easily read or type faster than the
>data could be transmitted.
Sure! In fact, one of the ads for one of the early Commodore modems used
that very pitch: "Sends data faster than you can type!"
>Clicking the advanced option could give a warning
>that improper changing of these entries could stop
>the browser from working.
Yes... along with an option to never see that warning again
>The is what the "large fonts" setting changes in the advanced video
>options.
In XP, Open Windows Explorer in "Classic" mode. Highlight any file or
directory. Now look at the text just above the Start button. It's
microscopic, and nothing I have found can enlarge it.
Or open a dialog box, such as the advanced video options you just mentioned.
The text on those dialogs is the same micro text, and there's no way to
enlarge it.
Please, please show me where I'm wrong. The difference between a period and
a comma, between i and l, between 8 and B, and many others, are absolutely
indistinguishable to me.
>The problem is that many programmers never test
>their applications at various resolutions and font sizes.
I still say that's Windows' fault. Windows should respect my preferences no
matter what the programmer said about font size. Enlarge his whole
fixed-size window if necessary. Something.
>This is required if a person wants to keep the system
>fonts readable at even higher resolutions than 800x600.
I have applications that I use for my work that force me to use 1024x768
resolution. A period in the system font is two pixels. It's like spotting
a hole in a golf course from an airplane. Now put those two pixels on a
white background and it's like trying to pick out a sunspot.
>Here are some common video modes and the custom font settings that are
>required to keep the system font appearing the same size as it does in
>640x480 mode. This happens to be close to the smallest size I can read on a
>19-inch monitor.
>
> 1024x768 160%
>
>I currently use 1024x768 with my system fonts set to 150 percent.
I haven't been able to find this option. Would you give me directions,
please?
>I gave up many years ago trying to configure Windows to
>use a black background. Too many programs are hard coded to force black
>text, making them unusable
I haven't given up yet, but you're right, many things force black text and
it's infuriating. Many third party applications, as well as the Windows
Help files, for crying out loud! And they don't obey my system specified
chosen highlight colors, either; when I highlight text in them they go to
white on white. It's sickeningly stupid. A lot of times I can see
something forced to black by highlighting it, but not the Windows Help
files. To read those I have to highlight, copy, and paste into a text
editor. This is the thanks we get for making the Microsoft bosses into a
bunch of out-of-touch billionaires.
J.
| |
| FoxWolfie Galen 2006-12-17, 7:12 am |
| On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:46:04 -0700, Janice P. <none@nowhere.domain> wrote:
> In XP, Open Windows Explorer in "Classic" mode. Highlight any file or
> directory. Now look at the text just above the Start button. It's
> microscopic, and nothing I have found can enlarge it.
>
> Or open a dialog box, such as the advanced video options you just
> mentioned. The text on those dialogs is the same micro text, and there's
> no way to enlarge it.
>
> Please, please show me where I'm wrong. The difference between a period
> and a comma, between i and l, between 8 and B, and many others, are
> absolutely indistinguishable to me.
Same here. I confuse those same characters myself, unless I make the fonts
so large that I then have to scroll more than I'm willing to do.
I do not have Windows XP, as I'm still using Windows 98se. In Win98, the
only start button I have is the one on the task bar. The text that appears
above that, which is normally small, is the same font that appears below
each desktop icon and is adjustable. Fonts that often appear in dialog
boxes and sometimes in input boxes in Windows is very small and can not be
adjusted using the appearance tab under display properties. I don't know
what the equivalent areas are under XP. The only way I found to adjust
these normally unadjustable fonts is to go into my display properties,
select the settings tab and then the advanced button. That is where the
large fonts and custom fonts setting is. Unlike the appearance tab,
changing these font settings alters the font metrics for all of Windows at
once. It also requires a restart of Windows to take effect. This is the
only way I've even found to enlarge the system font, but it comes with a
price. The sizes of dialog boxes and other screen elements are often
calculated from this particular font setting. Dialogs and menus that would
normally fit the screen often are too large to fit, even though the fonts
themselves don't grown is size at the same rate. It would not surprise me
to discover that Microsoft removed the ability to alter the system fonts in
XP. They want people to see and use Windows just like they do. If your eyes
aren't perfect, I don't think they really care. 
>
> I still say that's Windows' fault. Windows should respect my preferences
> no matter what the programmer said about font size. Enlarge his whole
> fixed-size window if necessary. Something.
The problem is that many programmers, determined to make their programs
look the way they prefer, will purposely find ways to override whatever
Windows tries to enforce. Windows is broken in many ways, but some
programmers have a talent for coming up with things that are even more
broken than Windows already is. Even if Windows was 100 percent capable of
being set to your own preferences, and remembering it, some programmers
would still hard code their applications to disobey what Windows wanted to
do, just so they can do it their own way. The problem is often that their
way is only right if you are using the same type of system, with the same
resolution and have the same visual capabilities. They set things their way
and provide no options to change it.
> I have applications that I use for my work that force me to use 1024x768
> resolution. A period in the system font is two pixels. It's like
> spotting a hole in a golf course from an airplane. Now put those two
> pixels on a white background and it's like trying to pick out a sunspot.
Unfortunately, I thing we are going to have reliable speech recognition as
a standard feature in all programs, long before they fix font size problems
like this. Of course, that would only work if you were in a situation where
you could talk to your computer without disturbing others. It would also
ignore the fact that many people would still rather read and type, rather
than listen and speak, to a computer.
The size of your periods and commas might be altered slightly with
different fonts, though I know you can use different font faces for the
system font. For normal reading, I use Bitstream Vera Sans Mono. I have it
set so that I get 80 characters across the full width of my screen, so it
is pretty large by most people's standards. The periods a nine pixels
arranged in a 3x3 square. A comma occupies 13 pixels, so there is a
noticeable difference. Unfortunately, There is no way to apply this font to
the main system font.
>
> I haven't been able to find this option. Would you give me directions,
> please?
Someone with XP will have to help with that, assuming the option is there.
All I can say is that it is not likely to be in the same place where you
choose your colors, icon and title bar fonts. I'd like to know where it is
in XP myself, as it would be a factor in whether I would be likely to
upgrade. I obviously don't want to move to a system that I can't see as
well. I know several dozen other computer users around here, but I honestly
only know one person who has Win 2000 on his system. The rest are all still
using 98se, ME and even 95. I was personally still using Win 3.11 up until
just three years ago. It did everything I needed, until programs started
requiring Winsock 2.0. They never made a Winsock 2.0 for 16-bit Windows, so
I went to 95 for a year, and then to 98se - each upgrade being noticeably
slower than the previous version. Thankfully, Firefox isn't like that. It
tends to get faster with each new major version.
> I haven't given up yet, but you're right, many things force black text and
> it's infuriating. Many third party applications, as well as the Windows
> Help files, for crying out loud! And they don't obey my system specified
> chosen highlight colors, either; when I highlight text in them they go to
> white on white. It's sickeningly stupid. A lot of times I can see
> something forced to black by highlighting it, but not the Windows Help
> files. To read those I have to highlight, copy, and paste into a text
> editor. This is the thanks we get for making the Microsoft bosses into a
> bunch of out-of-touch billionaires.
And cutting and pasting from help files is sometimes anything but reliable.
Not only does it strip any images or sample diagrams, but it often mangles
the formatting of the help text.
Sometimes I think there is a connection between the ability to comfortably
read 4-point fonts on a 1920x1440 display, and the desire to develop and
distribute software!
--
FoxWolfie
| |
| John Thompson 2006-12-17, 7:14 pm |
| On 2006-12-17, Janice P <none@nowhere.domain> wrote:
> Nevertheless, I apologize for the nasty link I posted. Sincerely.
Apology accepted. And I offer my own for the ambigious response that
triggered this whole tirade.
> Can we move on now?
With pleasure. Enjoy...
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
|
|
|
|