If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
Is there any simple way to get rid of background image in Chrome, to make
text readable again? Preferabally without installing anything. Often I can nearly read the text, until the crap image loads in the background... -- |\ /| | \/ |@rk \../ \/os |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
On 12/1/18 8:28 AM, Linea Recta wrote:
Is there any simple way to get rid of background image in Chrome, to make text readable again? Preferabally without installing anything. Often I can nearly read the text, until the crap image loads in the background... I have no background images in chrome, none that the web page wants that is. https://www.google.com/ is a blank white page as it should be. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
"Big Al" schreef in bericht
news On 12/1/18 8:28 AM, Linea Recta wrote: Is there any simple way to get rid of background image in Chrome, to make text readable again? Preferabally without installing anything. Often I can nearly read the text, until the crap image loads in the background... I have no background images in chrome, none that the web page wants that is. Yes, that's what I want to get rid of. Often very badly chosen colours, no contrast. Or animated trash, making my life hell trying to read anything. -- |\ /| | \/ |@rk \../ \/os |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
Part 2
In case it might be useful, here's a typical sampling of custom CSS I use. Below is part of my userContent.css file for Firefox. Distinct HTML items can be uniquely designated in CSS. A period denotes a class: .someclass A pound sign denotes an ID: #someID Class and ID don't mean much in practice. They're just unique identifiers. Class may be used for multiple things and ID for single, but that's not necessarily the case. /* */ is a comment that has no effect. In other words, customizing CSS in a browser mostly follows the same rules as CSS itself. In Pale Moon and Firefox you can right-click - Inspect Element to see the code related to an item. (I'm not sure that's in all versions, but the "developer tools" have always been present in the versions I've installed.) The first item in my sample below just removes distracting progress bars that are created by HTML. PROGRESS is a new HTML5 tag. Without script it just loops pointlessly, creating a distraction. The Microsoft code is to remove the left side of their broken docs pages. Otherwise I see half the text offscreen! That's an ID. The .overlay item is to remove blocks put on top of text. It works widely because many webmasters just copy each other. So they all use the same trick and they all use the same class name! The "stop animation" items are to stop all the various moving distractions that can be done with CSS: Distracting slideshows, weird text animation, etc. As CSS becomes increasingly powerful, it's becoming an increasing nuisance. It started out as a great formatting tool. Now it's becoming like Flash in the 90s -- overused by hotshot webmasters to create irritating websites. /* BEGIN CSS SAMPLE FROM userContent.css in Firefox. custom.css for Chrome is probably similar. */ /* stop progress bar animation */ PROGRESS {display: none !important;} /* Microsoft docs - remove blank left side */ #left-container {display: none !important;} /* overlay panels to thwart noscript */ ..overlay {display: none !important;} /* stop CSS animation */ * {transform: none !important; -moz-transform: none !important; transition-property: none !important; -moz-transition-property: none !important; -moz-transition-duration: none !important; animation: none !important; -moz-animation: none !important; -webkit-animation: none !important;} :before {display: none !important;} :after {display: none !important;} ----- I may seem overly critical of webmasters but this really is becoming a big problem. Even big companies typically have pages done by underpaid college grads or graphics people who actually have no idea what they're doing. They use for-dummies drag-drop tools, pull in gobs of script from outside sources that they don't understand, paste in any old thing they find to produce the latest trendy effect... Want to make your headlines slide around when someone hovers over them? Oh, look! Here's a snippet to do that! They don't actually know how to write either the HTML/CSS or the script. It's not only creating a lot of broken and bloated pages. It's also a security risk. That's why wordpress pages are so risky for enabling script: Anyone can drag-drop their way to a wordpress website and add lots of extras like shopping carts and comment boards. But then they don't know enough to update those things when a bug is found. They don't know where their pages are or how they got written. They know nothing of the basic technology. They just know how to drag-drop their webpage. So hackers take advantage by running exploits on outdated widget code, doing things like planting malware on the site. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
In message , Mayayana
writes: [] A pound sign denotes an ID: #someID [] # is a hash, number sign, sharp sign, or even an octothorp (I think). It isn't a pound sign - this is (though not being part of original-ASCII it might not come through right): £. Ever been frustrated that you can't *disagree* with a petition? If so, visit 255soft.uk - and please pass it on, too. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Veni Vidi Vacuum [I came, I saw, It sucked] - , 1998 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 16:05:50 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , Mayayana writes: [] A pound sign denotes an ID: #someID [] # is a hash, number sign, sharp sign, or even an octothorp (I think). Yes to all of the above. It isn't a pound sign - Yes, it is. It commonly goes by that name in the USA. this is (though not being part of original-ASCII it might not come through right): £. That, of course, is also a pound sign--the abbreviation for the UK unit of currency. But that doesn't mean that # isn't also called a pound sign. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| A pound sign denotes an ID: #someID | [] | # is a hash, number sign, sharp sign, or even an octothorp (I think). It | isn't a pound sign - this is (though not being part of original-ASCII it | might not come through right): £. | Sorry. I guess hash is better in international forums. None of the others is unambiguous in my experience. (Except in Microsoft's world of language butchery, where they insist C# must be pronounced as the cutesy "C sharp".) I use it as a number sign, but I've never heard it called a number sign. Octothorp? Maybe in the rarefied world of your OED. In the US, # is most commonly a pound sign because in public it's most often used to mark items for sale by weight. I'm afraid that if you want to control your blood pressure you just have to accept that the US is the new Rome. In spades. And no one much cares what people in the UK think. No insult. Just facts. You can go to France and complain that it's a crescent roll and not the mouth-full-of-pebbles "cwah-sauh" word that they use. But it's their country, after all. Better to just enjoy your dessert. I was reminded of the vast Americanization of the world last night when I watched "Crazy Rich Asians". A fun movie. Mostly it was just silly, with a very worn-out, cliche, Cinderella romance plot. I knew the whole plot after the first few minutes. She's worthy of being the princess because she's beautiful and doesn't care about the money, or prestige, or being beautiful. So she gets the goods. But what made it interesting was the sociological spectacle of it. It's a wild, Asian comedy that takes place mostly in Singapore. The landscape was astonishing. The cultural portrayal was a semiotic explosion. Random Asian values and symbols embedded in a mindset yearning to be Yank. And the proliferation of American cultural symbols all existing out of context, as merely American. Nothing was really any good unless it was American. There was no limit to how much people could spend, and they did. But they couldn't buy being white American. (That's a controversial statment these days. And I realize that as a white man I'm singlehandedly responsible for the downfall of modern civilization. But facts is facts.) Now that that's settled, care to argue about fags and biscuits? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
On 12/1/18 10:37 AM, Mayayana wrote:
[snip] In the US, # is most commonly a pound sign because in public it's most often used to mark items for sale by weight. I've usually heard it called a number sign, as in door # 1, door # 2, or door # 3. [snip] -- 24 days until the winter celebration (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:00:00 AM for 1 day). Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "The government ought to stay out of the prayer business." -- Jimmy Carter |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
"Big Al" wrote
| My pet peeve is web pages that are trending towards phones with thin | columns down the center of the page when they could use the wide screen | page I have on my PC. | | It's not that hard to detect what OS you are on and redirect to another | page that is phone design or a page that is PC designed. Except that | takes work and no one these days want to do any work, God forbid you do | a good job now a days. | I figure the giant text is probably also geared toward phones. But it doesn't really take a lot of work to adapt a page, as you say. The broken Microsoft page I mentioned isn't even self-sizing! It's almost effortless to design the page so it auto-sizes to fit the browser, but they can't be bothered. Even with thousands of that particluar page template in use, called by millions of people, they can't be bothered. I suspect that with a lot of bad sites the reason may be that they think phones are the only relevant media. Computers are for work. Increasingly, people shop and use services on their phone. Phone apps are ad-supported. No one tries to read long articles on their phone. It's just quickie consumerism. And that's where the money is. So they just don't care if their page works on a desktop. And they probably don't realize, in many cases, that it doesn't. I was struck by that change recently. Some years ago I wrote a program to pull Google maps, satellite and streeview images from their server without having to visit google in a browser, using the REST API. Google offered free, anonymous access, so long as the software was free and sported their logo. Recently I've been rewriting the code to use Bing. Google now requires a credit card to get maps. As of July, 2018. If you go over the free limit they charge you. No options. If someone steals your Google key you might lose a lot of money before you even know it happened. I figured that Google is probably planning to move gradually toward pay services. But I think the more immediate reason for their change is the dramatic change in usage. Most maps are now seen on phones. And those are mostly used by phone apps. And those apps are mostly ad-supported. So why should Google let them pull maps and not ask for a cut? The maps in phone apps are not going to help bring people to google in order to show them ads. It's tricky for website owners who want to call a Google map and lack either the sense or the talent to draw their own. If they embed javascript with their key, the key could be stolen by half of Asia and cost them a fortune. The only way to be reasonably safe would be to call for the map with a server-side library, over an encrypted connection, and change their Google key periodically. On the other hand, who visits websites anymore? If it's not on Amazon or Facebook you probably don't care about it. And what kind of nut wants to read stuff? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
"Mark Lloyd" wrote
| I've usually heard it called a number sign, as in door # 1, door # 2, or | door # 3. | People read it as "door number 1", but that's not the same as calling it a "number sign"... Or did you want the box where Carol is standing? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 10:52:19 -0600, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 12/1/18 10:37 AM, Mayayana wrote: In the US, # is most commonly a pound sign because in public it's most often used to mark items for sale by weight. I've usually heard it called a number sign, as in door # 1, door # 2, or door # 3. In grammar school some 50+ years ago, it was the pound sign, but I remember we also talked about some limited circumstances where it could refer to other things, such as numbers. I remember someone referring to it as the tic-tac-toe sign. Maybe it's an age thing, but a while back I was working with a 20-something to get his network gear configured. I suggested adding a comment to the config where we had made a non-trivial change, so he'd be able to remember what we did and why. He added the comment, but I reminded him that the comment line needed to begin with a pound sign so that the system wouldn't try to parse it as a config element. He went quiet for a bit, so I helpfully suggested "Shift-3". "Oh!", he exclaimed, "You mean the hash tag!" SMH -- Char Jackson |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 10:52:19 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote: On 12/1/18 10:37 AM, Mayayana wrote: [snip] In the US, # is most commonly a pound sign because in public it's most often used to mark items for sale by weight. I've usually heard it called a number sign, as in door # 1, door # 2, or door # 3. Yes, it has more than one name. J. P. Gilliver mentioned some others. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 10:18:33 -0500, Big Al wrote:
My pet peeve is web pages that are trending towards phones with thin columns down the center of the page when they could use the wide screen page I have on my PC. It's not that hard to detect what OS you are on and redirect to another page that is phone design or a page that is PC designed. Except that takes work and no one these days want to do any work, God forbid you do a good job now a days. It's not a matter of detecting the OS, but of detecting the width of the browser window. This is easily done in CSS, and support for that particular construct is in all popular browsers, as far as I'm aware. On well-designed Web pages, when running on your desktop, if you gradually decrease the width of your browser window you will reach a point where suddenly the page snaps into a different layout, one appropriate for narrow screens. I steer a middle course on my own pages. I set a maximum text width, based on readability studies. Otherwise people with 4K screens would have lines of text that are uncomfortably long for reading. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
In message , Mayayana
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | A pound sign denotes an ID: #someID | [] | # is a hash, number sign, sharp sign, or even an octothorp (I think). It | isn't a pound sign - this is (though not being part of original-ASCII it | might not come through right): £. | Sorry. I guess hash is better in international forums. None of the others is unambiguous in my experience. (Except in Microsoft's world of language butchery, where they insist C# must be pronounced as the cutesy "C sharp".) I use it as a number sign, but I've never I did mention sharp (-:! However, I've rarely encountered it outside musical circles. heard it called a number sign. Octothorp? Maybe in the rarefied world of your OED. I suppose it will be in there (everything else is!), but I've only ever seen it in Wikipedia entries, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number...mes_in_English . (Interestingly, just above the octo- section in that page, it says: ------- Hashtag The word "hashtag" is often used when reading social media messages aloud, indicating the start of a hashtag. For instance the text "#foo" is often read out loud as "hashtag, foo" (as opposed to "hash, foo"). This leads to the common belief that the symbol itself is called "hashtag". --- So it isn't actually _called_ hashtag.) In the US, # is most commonly a pound sign because in public it's most often used to mark items for sale by weight. That's interesting. Do you mean it is used to represent the pound weight (what we use "lb" for here, though we're [albeit _very_ gradually!] going towards metric), or just to indicate that something _is_ sold by weight? I'm afraid that if you want to control your blood pressure you just have to accept that the US is the new Rome. OK (-: In spades. And no one much cares what people in the UK think. No insult. Just facts. Hmm. May be true in parts of the USA. You can go to France and complain that it's a crescent roll and not the mouth-full-of-pebbles "cwah-sauh" word that they use. But it's their country, after all. Better to just enjoy your dessert. I, too, actually prefer to use the English version where I can - certainly in all the places where people trying to be clever/deceptive/whatever use foreign words. (And foodyism is certainly one of those places!) [I sometimes translate things that _shouldn't_ be translated, like names - mainly because it irritates my brother. Do you know the composer Joe Green, for example? (His "requiem" for example ....)] I was reminded of the vast Americanization of the world last night when I watched "Crazy Rich Asians". A fun movie. Mostly it was just silly, with a very worn-out, cliche, Cinderella romance plot. I knew the whole plot after the first few minutes. She's worthy of being the princess because she's beautiful and doesn't care about the money, or prestige, or being beautiful. So she gets the goods. But what made it interesting was the sociological spectacle of it. It's a wild, Asian comedy that takes place mostly in Singapore. The landscape was astonishing. The cultural portrayal was a semiotic explosion. Random Asian values and symbols embedded in a mindset yearning to be Yank. And the proliferation of American cultural symbols all existing out of context, as merely American. Nothing was really any good unless it was American. There was no limit to how much people could spend, and they did. But they couldn't buy being white American. (That's a controversial statment these days. And I realize that as a white man I'm singlehandedly responsible for the downfall of modern civilization. (-: But facts is facts.) Now that that's settled, care to argue about fags and biscuits? And don't ask to borrow a rubber, or to be knocked up in the morning. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Old soldiers never die - only young ones |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
kill background image in Chrome
In message , Stan Brown
writes: On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 10:18:33 -0500, Big Al wrote: My pet peeve is web pages that are trending towards phones with thin columns down the center of the page when they could use the wide screen page I have on my PC. It's not that hard to detect what OS you are on and redirect to another page that is phone design or a page that is PC designed. Except that takes work and no one these days want to do any work, God forbid you do a good job now a days. It's not a matter of detecting the OS, but of detecting the width of the browser window. This is easily done in CSS, and support for that particular construct is in all popular browsers, as far as I'm aware. The thing is, until the advent of huge screens (see below), even _that_ wasn't necessary: basic text in HTML autowraps to fit anyway! It's only the advent of those who try to force their webpage to look like a piece of paper _of fixed layout_ that has *broken* this; if they really want to do that, they should use .pdf, not HTML - that's what (to a first approximation) .pdf is _for_. (It can still have hyperlinks, too.) Even if you really must have columns, those can be specified as percentages of the window width, and thus will autoscale - no CSS needed. On well-designed Web pages, when running on your desktop, if you gradually decrease the width of your browser window you will reach a point where suddenly the page snaps into a different layout, one appropriate for narrow screens. If scripted to hell, yes. If left alone, it will adjust _continuously_ as you change the window width. I steer a middle course on my own pages. I set a maximum text width, based on readability studies. Otherwise people with 4K screens would have lines of text that are uncomfortably long for reading. That _is_ thoughtful of you. JPG Visit 255soft.uk - no CSS there! (Content currently only relevant in UK.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment. -Robert Maynard Hutchins, educator (1899-1977) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|