A firefox secret

[Aaron Konstam]

For those who didn't want to get involved with my rant here is a firefox 
secret that is worth knowing.
> >
>
> Or ~/.mozilla/plugins or /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins or ....?  As someone
> just starting with Fedora Core 6, I had a difficult time getting the
> plugins installed and working, and then two time later updates messed me
> up, and the last time I am not sure what messed it up.  But because I am
> using my old 466Mhz Celeron with 256Mb of memory I don't want to waste
> developers time with a bugzilla against this old, slow, memory
> constrained system (even though it is more powerful that the CRAY that
> was used in the 60's.)
>
> Regards,
> Les H

Now I will tell you a secret. If you go into about:config you will see
that the configuration: 
browser.download.hide_plugins_without_extensions is set as true by
default. Only when it is set to false can you see what you want to see
in the: Edit->Preferences->downloads->view & Edit Actions.
With this set as true you are flying blind with plugins.  Why does 
fedora not distribute this with the configuration set properly. How would you
know about this?

[Dotan Cohen]

On 05/02/07, Aaron Konstam  wrote:
> For those who didn't want to get involved with my rant here is a firefox
> secret that is worth knowing.
> > >
> >
> > Or ~/.mozilla/plugins or /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins or ....?  As someone
> > just starting with Fedora Core 6, I had a difficult time getting the
> > plugins installed and working, and then two time later updates messed me
> > up, and the last time I am not sure what messed it up.  But because I am
> > using my old 466Mhz Celeron with 256Mb of memory I don't want to waste
> > developers time with a bugzilla against this old, slow, memory
> > constrained system (even though it is more powerful that the CRAY that
> > was used in the 60's.)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Les H
>
> Now I will tell you a secret. If you go into about:config you will see
> that the configuration:
> browser.download.hide_plugins_without_extensions is set as true by
> default. Only when it is set to false can you see what you want to see
> in the: Edit->Preferences->downloads->view & Edit Actions.
> With this set as true you are flying blind with plugins.  Why does
> fedora not distribute this with the configuration set properly. How would you
> know about this?

File a bug. It cerainly seems rediculous.

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com/what_is/website.html
http://gmail-com.com/faq.php

[Aaron Konstam]

On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 18:44 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On 05/02/07, Aaron Konstam  wrote:
> > For those who didn't want to get involved with my rant here is a
>
> firefox
> > secret that is worth knowing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Or ~/.mozilla/plugins or /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins or ....?  As
>
> someone
> > > just starting with Fedora Core 6, I had a difficult time getting
>
> the
> > > plugins installed and working, and then two time later updates
>
> messed me
> > > up, and the last time I am not sure what messed it up.  But
>
> because I am
> > > using my old 466Mhz Celeron with 256Mb of memory I don't want to
>
> waste
> > > developers time with a bugzilla against this old, slow, memory
> > > constrained system (even though it is more powerful that the CRAY
>
> that
> > > was used in the 60's.)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Les H
> >
> > Now I will tell you a secret. If you go into about:config you will
>
> see
> > that the configuration:
> > browser.download.hide_plugins_without_extensions is set as true by
> > default. Only when it is set to false can you see what you want to
>
> see
> > in the: Edit->Preferences->downloads->view & Edit Actions.
> > With this set as true you are flying blind with plugins.  Why does
> > fedora not distribute this with the configuration set properly. How
>
> would you
> > know about this?
>
> File a bug. It cerainly seems rediculous.
>
> Dotan Cohen

Ok, I wanted to do what Dotan suggested. But firefox is not one of the
components you can file a request for in bugzilla. I would be interested
in a suggestion from the buglilla suporters.

[Todd Zullinger]

Aaron Konstam wrote:
> Ok, I wanted to do what Dotan suggested. But firefox is not one of
> the components you can file a request for in bugzilla. I would be
> interested in a suggestion from the buglilla suporters.

It most certainly is an available component.  I verified this by going
to http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/, then Enter a new bug report.
I clicked on the Fedora Core link in Fedora Products and then scrolled
down in the alphabetical list of Components until I saw firefox.  How
and where did you go that you aren't finding it in the component list?

If you do file a bug about this, it's probably worth noting whether or
not this config option is enabled by default in the mozilla.org
firefox tarballs.  If it's not, you'll have a harder time making the
case that Fedora should ship a different default I think.

[Aaron Konstam]

On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 12:21 -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > Ok, I wanted to do what Dotan suggested. But firefox is not one of
> > the components you can file a request for in bugzilla. I would be
> > interested in a suggestion from the buglilla suporters.
>
> It most certainly is an available component.  I verified this by going
> to http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/, then Enter a new bug report.
> I clicked on the Fedora Core link in Fedora Products and then scrolled
> down in the alphabetical list of Components until I saw firefox.  How
> and where did you go that you aren't finding it in the component list?
>
> If you do file a bug about this, it's probably worth noting whether or
> not this config option is enabled by default in the mozilla.org
> firefox tarballs.  If it's not, you'll have a harder time making the
> case that Fedora should ship a different default I think.

That is where I went but I choose to enter a request since this is not a
bug. Then firefox is not choosable. When I tried the bug reporting
firefox was available but in the middle of entering the description all
that I entered disappeared. I will try again later. But it is
frustrating and off-putting.
>

[Todd Zullinger]

Aaron Konstam wrote:
> That is where I went but I choose to enter a request since this is
> not a bug.

You can set the priority of the bug to low and add something like
"[RFE]" to the beginning of the Summary.
> When I tried the bug reporting firefox was available but in the
> middle of entering the description all that I entered disappeared. I
> will try again later. But it is frustrating and off-putting.

I can imagine that would be annoying.  I don't think that has anything
to do with bugzilla though.  It sounds more like something with
Firefox.  I hate typing in web forms and if I need to type more than a
few lines I use an editor and them paste the text into the form.  You
could do the same thing, just copy the text from the description to
your favorite text editor and then past it back when you have it like
you want it.

[Aaron Konstam]

On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 11:06 -0600, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Now I will tell you a secret. If you go into about:config you will
> >
> > see
> > > that the configuration:
> > > browser.download.hide_plugins_without_extensions is set as true by
> > > default. Only when it is set to false can you see what you want to
> >
> > see
> > > in the: Edit->Preferences->downloads->view & Edit Actions.
> > > With this set as true you are flying blind with plugins.  Why does
> > > fedora not distribute this with the configuration set properly.
>
> How
> > would you
> > > know about this?
> >
> > File a bug. It cerainly seems rediculous.
> >
> > Dotan Cohen

Many moons ago I reveled the above secret and was asked to file a
bugzilla. So I did on bugzilla.redhat.com
They responded that I should file the bug on bugzilla.mozilla.org
So  I did: bug 373568

Mozilla responded that this was a duplicate of bug 370386
This bug is indeed related but it blames the problem on gnome and
suggests a patch which clearly has never been applied. If you go to bug
370386 you will see reference to an older mozilla bug report.

At this point I am dizzy. I will think about this further but it looks
hopeless for anyone to take responsibility for this and then promise to
fix this in later firefoxes, gnomes or somewhere. If anyone wants to
trail this far enough to make a suggestion I am all ears.

[Aaron Konstam]

On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 10:14 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 11:06 -0600, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > > > > Now I will tell you a secret. If you go into about:config you will
> > > >
> > > > see
> > > > > that the configuration:
> > > > > browser.download.hide_plugins_without_extensions is set as true by
> > > > > default. Only when it is set to false can you see what you want to
> > > >
> > > > see
> > > > > in the: Edit->Preferences->downloads->view & Edit Actions.
> > > > > With this set as true you are flying blind with plugins.  Why does
> > > > > fedora not distribute this with the configuration set properly.
> > >
> > > How
> > > > would you
> > > > > know about this?
> > > >
> > > > File a bug. It cerainly seems rediculous.
> > > >
> > > > Dotan Cohen
> >
> > Many moons ago I reveled the above secret and was asked to file a
> > bugzilla. So I did on bugzilla.redhat.com
> > They responded that I should file the bug on bugzilla.mozilla.org
> > So  I did: bug 373568
> >
> > Mozilla responded that this was a duplicate of bug 370386
> > This bug is indeed related but it blames the problem on gnome and
> > suggests a patch which clearly has never been applied. If you go to bug
> > 370386 you will see reference to an older mozilla bug report.
> >
> > At this point I am dizzy. I will think about this further but it looks
> > hopeless for anyone to take responsibility for this and then promise to
> > fix this in later firefoxes, gnomes or somewhere. If anyone wants to
> > trail this far enough to make a suggestion I am all ears.
>
> I just checked, the default on mine is "false."  [Firefox 2.0.0.1
> FC-6]
>
> Bob Goodwin

Are you sure you did not set it to false before you upgraded? I would
expect the settings for each user would be retained in their home
directory. Mine is also false after installing firefox2 but ir was false
before I installed firefox-1.5.0.10.

[Oldman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Aaron Konstam wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 10:14 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> > Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 11:06 -0600, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > > > > > Now I will tell you a secret. If you go into about:config you will
> > > > >
> > > > > see
> > > > > > that the configuration:
> > > > > > browser.download.hide_plugins_without_extensions is set as true by
> > > > > > default. Only when it is set to false can you see what you want to
> > > > >
> > > > > see
> > > > > > in the: Edit->Preferences->downloads->view & Edit Actions.
> > > > > > With this set as true you are flying blind with plugins.  Why does
> > > > > > fedora not distribute this with the configuration set properly.
> > > >
> > > > How
> > > > > would you
> > > > > > know about this?
> > > > >
> > > > > File a bug. It cerainly seems rediculous.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dotan Cohen
> > >
> > > Many moons ago I reveled the above secret and was asked to file a
> > > bugzilla. So I did on bugzilla.redhat.com
> > > They responded that I should file the bug on bugzilla.mozilla.org
> > > So  I did: bug 373568
> > >
> > > Mozilla responded that this was a duplicate of bug 370386
> > > This bug is indeed related but it blames the problem on gnome and
> > > suggests a patch which clearly has never been applied. If you go to bug
> > > 370386 you will see reference to an older mozilla bug report.
> > >
> > > At this point I am dizzy. I will think about this further but it looks
> > > hopeless for anyone to take responsibility for this and then promise to
> > > fix this in later firefoxes, gnomes or somewhere. If anyone wants to
> > > trail this far enough to make a suggestion I am all ears.
> >
> > I just checked, the default on mine is "false."  [Firefox 2.0.0.1
> > FC-6]
> >
> > Bob Goodwin
>
> Are you sure you did not set it to false before you upgraded? I would
> expect the settings for each user would be retained in their home
> directory. Mine is also false after installing firefox2 but ir was false
> before I installed firefox-1.5.0.10.

I'll confirm that my new install of f7T2 with update to FFox 2.0.0.2 was
 TRUE, and I adjusted it to FALSE
FWIW
Scott
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFF9XdT5mBKdb7VQEcRAohlAJ9nXko7UmBSqlaJKTZJslIGUMFkQACgpONZ
> zfoFt7Gwrzu8M0qxJeFHgMA=
> =Gb8R
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Dotan Cohen]

On 12/03/07, Aaron Konstam  wrote:
> Are you sure you did not set it to false before you upgraded? I would
> expect the settings for each user would be retained in their home
> directory. Mine is also false after installing firefox2 but ir was false
> before I installed firefox-1.5.0.10.

Set to true here. FC6 Fx 2.0.0.1 I can't for the life of me remember
how I installed it, though. I didn't use the official mozilla build, I
think. If it's important to you, tell me how to check how fx was
installed and I'll gladly check for you.

Dotan Cohen

http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/196/fatboy_slim.html
http://english-lyrics.com

Please don't send HTML!

[Glenn]

On Monday 12 March 2007 10:15:11 am Bob Goodwin wrote:
> Aaron Konstam wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 10:14 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
>
> I just checked, the default on mine is "false."  [Firefox 2.0.0.1
> FC-6]
>
> Bob Goodwin
>
> Are you sure you did not set it to false before you upgraded? I would
> expect the settings for each user would be retained in their home
> directory. Mine is also false after installing firefox2 but ir was false
> before I installed firefox-1.5.0.10.
>
> I almost certain I didn't, but it could be incipient Alzheimer's!
>
> Bob

Damnit, Bob.  Turn off the flippin' HTML!

[Bob Goodwin]

Glenn wrote:
> On Monday 12 March 2007 10:15:11 am Bob Goodwin wrote:
> > Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 10:14 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > I just checked, the default on mine is "false."  [Firefox 2.0.0.1
> > FC-6]
> >
> > Bob Goodwin
> >
> > Are you sure you did not set it to false before you upgraded? I would
> > expect the settings for each user would be retained in their home
> > directory. Mine is also false after installing firefox2 but ir was false
> > before I installed firefox-1.5.0.10.
> >
> > I almost certain I didn't, but it could be incipient Alzheimer's!
> >
> > Bob
>
> Damnit, Bob.  Turn off the flippin' HTML!

It's not supposed to be HTML!  What do you see this time?

Bob

[Mark Fraser]

In article ,
   Bob Goodwin  wrote:
> Glenn wrote:

[Snip]
> It's not supposed to be HTML!  What do you see this time?

That's better. Even worse was the fact that it was white text on a black
background.

[Glenn]

On Monday 12 March 2007 10:55:42 am Bob Goodwin wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
> > On Monday 12 March 2007 10:15:11 am Bob Goodwin wrote:
> > > Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 10:14 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> > >
> > > I just checked, the default on mine is "false."  [Firefox 2.0.0.1
> > > FC-6]
> > >
> > > Bob Goodwin
> > >
> > > Are you sure you did not set it to false before you upgraded? I would
> > > expect the settings for each user would be retained in their home
> > > directory. Mine is also false after installing firefox2 but ir was false
> > > before I installed firefox-1.5.0.10.
> > >
> > > I almost certain I didn't, but it could be incipient Alzheimer's!
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Damnit, Bob.  Turn off the flippin' HTML!
>
> It's not supposed to be HTML!  What do you see this time?
>
> Bob

I don't see any HTML in this one.

[Timothy Murphy]

Aaron Konstam wrote:
> Now I will tell you a secret. If you go into about:config you will see
> that the configuration:
> browser.download.hide_plugins_without_extensions is set as true by
> default. Only when it is set to false can you see what you want to see
> in the: Edit->Preferences->downloads->view & Edit Actions.
> With this set as true you are flying blind with plugins.  Why does
> fedora not distribute this with the configuration set properly. How would
> you know about this?

Er ... where does one change this configuration entry?

[Aaron Konstam]

On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 17:54 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On 12/03/07, Aaron Konstam  wrote:
> > Are you sure you did not set it to false before you upgraded? I would
> > expect the settings for each user would be retained in their home
> > directory. Mine is also false after installing firefox2 but ir was false
> > before I installed firefox-1.5.0.10.
>
> Set to true here. FC6 Fx 2.0.0.1 I can't for the life of me remember
> how I installed it, though. I didn't use the official mozilla build, I
> think. If it's important to you, tell me how to check how fx was
> installed and I'll gladly check for you.
>
> Dotan Cohen

Sounds like you are as overworked as I think I am. Well you could check
if it was installed as rpm (rpm -qa |grep firefox). Was it the remi rpm
(rpm will have remi in its name to maybe the name of the repo you got it
from)
But I think I am convinced that on a fresh install the config value will
be true. By that I mean an install where it had not be set to false in
an earlier firefox that had been installed.

You need not waste you time further on this. I just have to decide who
will accept my complaint

[Aaron Konstam]

On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 19:11 +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > Now I will tell you a secret. If you go into about:config you will see
> > that the configuration:
> > browser.download.hide_plugins_without_extensions is set as true by
> > default. Only when it is set to false can you see what you want to see
> > in the: Edit->Preferences->downloads->view & Edit Actions.
> > With this set as true you are flying blind with plugins.  Why does
> > fedora not distribute this with the configuration set properly. How would
> > you know about this?
>
> Er ... where does one change this configuration entry?

In firefox go to about:confiug. You will see the config parameters and
their values. Scxroll down to:
browser.download.hide_plugins_without_extensions
and change its value.

[Timothy Murphy]

On Mon 12 Mar 2007, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 19:11 +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> > Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > > Now I will tell you a secret. If you go into about:config you will see
> > > that the configuration:
> > > browser.download.hide_plugins_without_extensions is set as true by
> > > default. Only when it is set to false can you see what you want to see
> > > in the: Edit->Preferences->downloads->view & Edit Actions.
> > > With this set as true you are flying blind with plugins.  Why does
> > > fedora not distribute this with the configuration set properly. How
> > > would you know about this?
> >
> > Er ... where does one change this configuration entry?
>
> In firefox go to about:confiug. You will see the config parameters and
> their values. Scxroll down to:
> browser.download.hide_plugins_without_extensions
> and change its value.

Thanks.
I had actually tried this unsuccessfully, but I see now that
double-clicking on this toggles the value true/false.

[Ric Moore]

On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 10:31 -0600, Glenn wrote:
> On Monday 12 March 2007 10:15:11 am Bob Goodwin wrote:
> > Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 10:14 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > I just checked, the default on mine is "false."  [Firefox 2.0.0.1
> > FC-6]
> >
> > Bob Goodwin
> >
> > Are you sure you did not set it to false before you upgraded? I would
> > expect the settings for each user would be retained in their home
> > directory. Mine is also false after installing firefox2 but ir was false
> > before I installed firefox-1.5.0.10.
> >
> > I almost certain I didn't, but it could be incipient Alzheimer's!
> >
> > Bob
>
> Damnit, Bob.  Turn off the flippin' HTML!

We're getting black pages with white lettering. Ric

[Bob Goodwin]

Ric Moore wrote:
> > > I'm almost certain I didn't, but it could be incipient Alzheimer's!
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Damnit, Bob.  Turn off the flippin' HTML!
>
> We're getting black pages with white lettering. Ric

As I intended when writing in html, I have a vision problem and the 
white on black seems best for me.  However I did not intend to send html 
to the list, certainly not after reading a thousand complaints over the 
last few years!  Why that happened I am not certain?  I could have 
clicked on the send html box, but I know better ...

I can only beg forgiveness and mercy.

Bob

[Tim]

On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 08:13 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> I have a vision problem and the white on black seems best for me.

Have you set an overall system theme to suit yourself?  And would that
not also colour the default plain text versions of mail in the same
manner, so you wouldn't need to bother with HTML mail?

Just asking for the sake of curiosity, because that sort of thing ought
to be doable for the user, without causing them any grief.  Personally I
hate 100% black on 100% white, for reading mail, though don't really
want the complete opposite, either.

Older versions of Linux did let you tweak GUI palettes, etc., with an
editor, quite easily.  You had more than just the choice of several
prepared themes.

[Claude Jones]

On Thu March 15 2007, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> I can only beg forgiveness and mercy.

For crimminy's sake! Don't do that! I prefer text to html on lists as do most 
for good reason, but, I have never, never, felt an obligation to scream at 
people about it! The people who should be asking forgiveness are those 
zealots who get so wrapped up in their damn rules that they forget that not 
every one's situation is the same as their own. Self annointed list cops are 
a lot more annoying in my book than those who commit an occasional lapse in 
proper netiquette, which was clearly the case here.

[Chris G]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:57:28PM +1030, Tim wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 08:13 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> > I have a vision problem and the white on black seems best for me.
>
> Have you set an overall system theme to suit yourself?  And would that
> not also colour the default plain text versions of mail in the same
> manner, so you wouldn't need to bother with HTML mail?
>
> Just asking for the sake of curiosity, because that sort of thing ought
> to be doable for the user, without causing them any grief.  Personally I
> hate 100% black on 100% white, for reading mail, though don't really
> want the complete opposite, either.
>
> Older versions of Linux did let you tweak GUI palettes, etc., with an
> editor, quite easily.  You had more than just the choice of several
> prepared themes.

What's this about "Older versions of Linux did let you ....", it's
just as possible now if you get away from the default Gnome/KDE
desktops.  I'm running fvwm2 on this FC6 system and have all the 'old
fashioned', very simple, ways to set colours etc.

[Tim]

Tim:
> > Older versions of Linux did let you tweak GUI palettes, etc., with an
> > editor, quite easily.  You had more than just the choice of several
> > prepared themes.

Eur Ing Chris Green:
> What's this about "Older versions of Linux did let you ....", it's
> just as possible now if you get away from the default Gnome/KDE
> desktops.  I'm running fvwm2 on this FC6 system and have all the 'old
> fashioned', very simple, ways to set colours etc.

Back when I tried Red Hat 6.0 Linux, using Gnome, I could do so.  Now, I
can't.

[Ric Moore]

On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 09:38 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
> On Thu March 15 2007, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> > I can only beg forgiveness and mercy.
>
> For crimminy's sake! Don't do that! I prefer text to html on lists as do most 
> for good reason, but, I have never, never, felt an obligation to scream at 
> people about it! The people who should be asking forgiveness are those 
> zealots who get so wrapped up in their damn rules that they forget that not 
> every one's situation is the same as their own. Self annointed list cops are 
> a lot more annoying in my book than those who commit an occasional lapse in 
> proper netiquette, which was clearly the case here.
>
> -- 
> Claude (who only goes Rambo when people start substituting their fingers with 
> their private appendages) Jones
> Brunswick, MD, USA

Wow! Claude! You GO! <cackles>

Here's something he might want to consider, just have a header stating
"Vision Impaired - No flames please for this html format." and everyone
would approve I would think. My left eye is heading for the crapper with
my diabetes.  If it gets really worse I might have to consider a similar
course. I thank whoever came up with ctrl+ to crank up the resolution on
the fly. I use that pretty often. :) Ric

[Dotan Cohen]

On 16/03/07, Ric Moore  wrote:
> Here's something he might want to consider, just have a header stating
> "Vision Impaired - No flames please for this html format." and everyone
> would approve I would think. My left eye is heading for the crapper with
> my diabetes.  If it gets really worse I might have to consider a similar
> course. I thank whoever came up with ctrl+ to crank up the resolution on
> the fly. I use that pretty often. :) Ric

I'm not yet 30, yet I've had the fonts turned up for years. It's one
of the reasons I started using Pheonix back in the windows days. Opera
would zoom the images as well as the text, which I hated. IE's "text
size" seems to be disconnected at the fuse.

Dotan Cohen

http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/518/yearwood_trisha.html
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/digg.html

[Scott van Looy]

Today Dotan Cohen did spake thusly:
> On 16/03/07, Ric Moore  wrote:
> > Here's something he might want to consider, just have a header stating
> > "Vision Impaired - No flames please for this html format." and everyone
> > would approve I would think. My left eye is heading for the crapper with
> > my diabetes.  If it gets really worse I might have to consider a similar
> > course. I thank whoever came up with ctrl+ to crank up the resolution on
> > the fly. I use that pretty often. :) Ric
>
> I'm not yet 30, yet I've had the fonts turned up for years. It's one
> of the reasons I started using Pheonix back in the windows days. Opera
> would zoom the images as well as the text, which I hated. IE's "text
> size" seems to be disconnected at the fuse.

Actually, it's not, it's web developers using px sizes instead of pt or em 
sizes for fonts. Firefox is just more forgiving of this

[Dotan Cohen]

On 17/03/07, Scott van Looy  wrote:
> > I'm not yet 30, yet I've had the fonts turned up for years. It's one
> > of the reasons I started using Pheonix back in the windows days. Opera
> > would zoom the images as well as the text, which I hated. IE's "text
> > size" seems to be disconnected at the fuse.
>
> Actually, it's not, it's web developers using px sizes instead of pt or em
> sizes for fonts. Firefox is just more forgiving of this

I know that. But when I'm wearing me "end user" hat, I don't care
about technical reasons. I want things to work.

Dotan Cohen

http://technology-sleuth.com/technical_answer/what_is_a_cellphone.html
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/324/manson_marilyn.html

[Scott van Looy]

Today Dotan Cohen did spake thusly:
> On 17/03/07, Scott van Looy  wrote:
> > > I'm not yet 30, yet I've had the fonts turned up for years. It's one
> > > of the reasons I started using Pheonix back in the windows days. Opera
> > > would zoom the images as well as the text, which I hated. IE's "text
> > > size" seems to be disconnected at the fuse.
> >
> > Actually, it's not, it's web developers using px sizes instead of pt or em
> > sizes for fonts. Firefox is just more forgiving of this
>
> I know that. But when I'm wearing me "end user" hat, I don't care
> about technical reasons. I want things to work.

That's nice, but you're blaming the wrong people. :P

[Dotan Cohen]

On 17/03/07, Scott van Looy  wrote:
> > I know that. But when I'm wearing me "end user" hat, I don't care
> > about technical reasons. I want things to work.
>
> That's nice, but you're blaming the wrong people. :P

No, I'm not. A web browser is a client-side app, therefore it should
do what the client wants. Even if web designers used px measurements,
the browser should override that with the user's preference. The term
"large fonts" means "make the fonts bigger than they normally would
be", not "make some of the fonts bigger than they normally would be".

Dotan Cohen

http://dotancohen.com/howto/firefox_password_manager.php
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/625/xero.html

[Matthew Miller]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 11:54:18AM +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> I'm not yet 30, yet I've had the fonts turned up for years. It's one
> of the reasons I started using Pheonix back in the windows days. Opera

You may want to check out the "No Squint" extension. It lets you set the
font scaling on a per-site basis.

[Scott van Looy]

Today Dotan Cohen did spake thusly:
> On 17/03/07, Scott van Looy  wrote:
> > > I know that. But when I'm wearing me "end user" hat, I don't care
> > > about technical reasons. I want things to work.
> >
> > That's nice, but you're blaming the wrong people. :P
>
> No, I'm not. A web browser is a client-side app, therefore it should
> do what the client wants. Even if web designers used px measurements,
> the browser should override that with the user's preference.

No it shouldn't. It should provide a way for the designer of the page to 
allow this behaviour, which it does.
> The term
> "large fonts" means "make the fonts bigger than they normally would
> be", not "make some of the fonts bigger than they normally would be".

As I said, depends if the site developer has a clue...

[Dotan Cohen]

On 17/03/07, Scott van Looy  wrote:
> Today Dotan Cohen did spake thusly:
> > On 17/03/07, Scott van Looy  wrote:
> > > > I know that. But when I'm wearing me "end user" hat, I don't care
> > > > about technical reasons. I want things to work.
> > >
> > > That's nice, but you're blaming the wrong people. :P
> >
> > No, I'm not. A web browser is a client-side app, therefore it should
> > do what the client wants. Even if web designers used px measurements,
> > the browser should override that with the user's preference.
>
> No it shouldn't. It should provide a way for the designer of the page to
> allow this behaviour, which it does.

No. It should obey the end user. This issue has been discussed to
death in the Fx development community regarding autocomplete disable
on forms. Google it if you must. Long story short: it's my f-ing
computer, it should do what I say. Why should I have to cut and paste
text into Notepad to read it?
> > The term
> > "large fonts" means "make the fonts bigger than they normally would
> > be", not "make some of the fonts bigger than they normally would be".
>
> As I said, depends if the site developer has a clue...

It should not be in his hands.

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com/what_is/client.html
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/644/braxton_tamar.html

[Matthew Saltzman]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On 17/03/07, Scott van Looy  wrote:
> > Today Dotan Cohen did spake thusly:
> > > On 17/03/07, Scott van Looy  wrote:
> > > > > I know that. But when I'm wearing me "end user" hat, I don't care
> > > > > about technical reasons. I want things to work.
> > > >
> > > > That's nice, but you're blaming the wrong people. :P
> > >
> > > No, I'm not. A web browser is a client-side app, therefore it should
> > > do what the client wants. Even if web designers used px measurements,
> > > the browser should override that with the user's preference.
> >
> > No it shouldn't. It should provide a way for the designer of the page to
> > allow this behaviour, which it does.
>
> No. It should obey the end user. This issue has been discussed to
> death in the Fx development community regarding autocomplete disable
> on forms. Google it if you must. Long story short: it's my f-ing
> computer, it should do what I say. Why should I have to cut and paste
> text into Notepad to read it?
> > > The term
> > > "large fonts" means "make the fonts bigger than they normally would
> > > be", not "make some of the fonts bigger than they normally would be".
> >
> > As I said, depends if the site developer has a clue...
>
> It should not be in his hands.

I didn't folow the early part of this thread, so I don't know if it's been 
mentioned, but...

In Fx, Edit -> Preferences -> Content, select Advanced from the Fonts & 
Colors box.  Select the fonts you want and min font size and uncheck 
"Allow pages to choose..."

Does that accomplish the desired effect?

[Dotan Cohen]

On 18/03/07, Matthew Saltzman  wrote:
> > > > The term
> > > > "large fonts" means "make the fonts bigger than they normally would
> > > > be", not "make some of the fonts bigger than they normally would be".
> > >
> > > As I said, depends if the site developer has a clue...
> >
> > It should not be in his hands.
>
> I didn't folow the early part of this thread, so I don't know if it's been
> mentioned, but...
>
> In Fx, Edit -> Preferences -> Content, select Advanced from the Fonts &
> Colors box.  Select the fonts you want and min font size and uncheck
> "Allow pages to choose..."
>
> Does that accomplish the desired effect?

Firefox has always let the user choose. We were discussing IE's lack
of an override option.

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com/what_is/ubuntu.html
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/449/sisqo.html

[Matthew Saltzman]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> We were discussing IE's lack of an override option.

Oh.  Why?

8^)

On Sunday 18 March 2007, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On 18/03/07, Matthew Saltzman  wrote:
> > > > > The term
> > > > > "large fonts" means "make the fonts bigger than
> > > > > they normally would be", not "make some of the
> > > > > fonts bigger than they normally would be".
> > > >
> > > > As I said, depends if the site developer has a
> > > > clue...
> > >
> > > It should not be in his hands.
> >
> > I didn't folow the early part of this thread, so I
> > don't know if it's been mentioned, but...
> >
> > In Fx, Edit -> Preferences -> Content, select Advanced
> > from the Fonts & Colors box.  Select the fonts you want
> > and min font size and uncheck "Allow pages to
> > choose..."
> >
> > Does that accomplish the desired effect?
>
> Firefox has always let the user choose. We were
> discussing IE's lack of an override option.
>
> Dotan Cohen
>
> http://what-is-what.com/what_is/ubuntu.html
> http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/449/sisqo.html

Oh, but it does and has since before IE5.

TOOLS > INTERNET OPTIONS > GENERAL you have 4 buttons 
at the bottom COLORS, FONTS, LANGUAGES AND 
ACCESSIBILITY

But why are you talking about IE any way when Firefox is 
available on windblows.

Browsers and CSS are designed to let the end user control 
the display of the page regardless what the designer had in 
mind.  The is a requirement made by the w3c.

[Scott van Looy]

On Mar 18 Matthew Saltzman did spake thusly:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> > We were discussing IE's lack of an override option.
>
> Oh.  Why?

Because the OP seems unaware that there's no issue here other than web 
developers not having a clue, as IE allows this behaviour...:P