InformAction Forums

Apologies if this is more appropriate for General; I'm a new registered user.

Unfortunately, there are sites that seem run by crazed visual marketing drones, with immense scripting, which I still have to use since they sell a useful product. In an ideal world, such sites would be plain text -- I just want to go order something.

x10.com is the worst case I have found. So far, I haven't been able to use it from my main machine, with NoScript and AdBlocker; there seem to be too many things, perhaps at remote URLs, to whitelist enough to make it usable. All I get is 1x1 pixel GIF.

Is there anything like a log/log analyzer in NoScript, so I can find exactly what it encounters? I'm reasonably sure the blocking is from NoScript rather than AdBlocker or even internal Mozilla, but I need to start somewhere.

HCBerkowitz wrote:Is there anything like a log/log analyzer in NoScript, so I can find exactly what it encounters? I'm reasonably sure the blocking is from NoScript rather than AdBlocker or even internal Mozilla, but I need to start somewhere.

I don't have time to check out that site myself to give you specific help, but I use the JSView extension when I want to examine the content of the scripts loaded from other sites.

All I get is 1x1 pixel GIF

Where? On http://www.x10.com/?

x10 seems relatively functional without allowing anything. JavaScript may only be need when you get around to adding something into your cart. Otherwise, it looks ok & you can navigate as expected (by bypassing the drop down items which also need JS). (Heh, I bet they could do well with porn.)

I have to agree with therube, I went to x10 with NoScript blocking as usual, Adblock Plus, RequestPolicy all active and no permissions given to anything and the site looks functional and a few clicks here and there seemed to work just fine, so not exactly sure what the exact problem is, can you share more specifics?

Alan Baxter wrote:...but I use the JSView extension when I want to examine the content of the scripts loaded from other sites.

Question Alan, what do you think of this extension compared to FireBug?

Now it works -- and the only thing that changed was the new NS version, but, as the gods would have it, I didn't try one last time before posting. On checking the browser history, indeed, before the NS version just installed, it would give me only 1x1 pixel GIF.

On another machine in the house, same FF and Kaspersky versions, but neither NS nor Adblocker, I could always get there.

It may be humiliating, but if posting to this forum means that the immediate last update fixes my problem, I can live with it.

HCBerkowitz wrote:Now it works -- and the only thing that changed was the new NS version, but, as the gods would have it, I didn't try one last time before posting. On checking the browser history, indeed, before the NS version just installed, it would give me only 1x1 pixel GIF.

On another machine in the house, same FF and Kaspersky versions, but neither NS nor Adblocker, I could always get there.

It may be humiliating, but if posting to this forum means that the immediate last update fixes my problem, I can live with it.

I am glad it worked out for you but I am still skeptical that it had anything to do with the NS or the latest update.
However, if it works for you now, its moot. Have fun.

GµårÐïåñ wrote:Question Alan, what do you think of this extension compared to FireBug?

I haven't used Firebug. How does it compare to JSView?

Alan Baxter wrote:I haven't used Firebug. How does it compare to JSView?

I have used Firebug but not JSView so I was hoping you knew I guess I have to begin playing with one to see

HCBerkowitz wrote:Unfortunately, there are sites that seem run by crazed visual marketing drones, with immense scripting, which I still have to use since they sell a useful product. In an ideal world, such sites would be plain text -- I just want to go order something.

I share your vision of an ideal world, so if you're *serious* about wanting a text-only site,

1) Right-click any image on the page > Block images from graphics.x10.com. If any are left, r-click and block from x10.com, and

2) View > Page Style > No style.

Presto! Text-only, with links to the products in which you are interested.

If you ever miss the hot chix pix, restore with Fx Tools > Options > Content > Load Images Automatically (is checked) "Exceptions", and remove these two entries from the "exceptions" list. Reload the page, and the girls are back. Can also reverse the View choice to "Basic page style". Hope this brings you your ideal world. I do the "no page style" frequently for sites with low-contrast text and background (light blue on dark blue, anything dark on black, etc.) and get a nice, black-on-white-text-with-blue-links site. Cheers!

Tom T. wrote: I share your vision of an ideal world, so if you're *serious* about wanting a text-only site,

1) Right-click any image on the page > Block images from graphics.x10.com. If any are left, r-click and block from x10.com, and

2) View > Page Style > No style.

Presto! Text-only, with links to the products in which you are interested.

If you ever miss the hot chix pix, restore with Fx Tools > Options > Content > Load Images Automatically (is checked) "Exceptions", and remove these two entries from the "exceptions" list. Reload the page, and the girls are back. Can also reverse the View choice to "Basic page style". Hope this brings you your ideal world. I do the "no page style" frequently for sites with low-contrast text and background (light blue on dark blue, anything dark on black, etc.) and get a nice, black-on-white-text-with-blue-links site. Cheers!

Hmm...If there was an extension which would do all these at the click of a button....

Tom T. wrote:I share your vision of an ideal world, so if you're *serious* about wanting a text-only site,

1) Right-click any image on the page > Block images from graphics.x10.com. If any are left, r-click and block from x10.com, and

2) View > Page Style > No style.

Presto! Text-only, with links to the products in which you are interested.

If you ever miss the hot chix pix, restore with Fx Tools > Options > Content > Load Images Automatically (is checked) "Exceptions", and remove these two entries from the "exceptions" list. Reload the page, and the girls are back. Can also reverse the View choice to "Basic page style". Hope this brings you your ideal world. I do the "no page style" frequently for sites with low-contrast text and background (light blue on dark blue, anything dark on black, etc.) and get a nice, black-on-white-text-with-blue-links site. Cheers!

Although I don't disagree with the spirit in which this advice was provided, it is not practical always. In neither defense of the poster or disagreement with you, let me say that to some extend the visual and extended coding used today to achieve a certain effect unfortunately would not all be functional without the "clutter" as poster called it and would not be true text-only like you suggested when "text" is hardly emphasized or used in its original form anymore. So much emphasis is put on fancy effects and newest and most coolest technology that text is quickly becoming an incidental portion of the website. Why I hate flash only website. So the balancing act is a bit more complex today than when we could use lynx to browse the "web".

nagan wrote:Hmm...If there was an extension which would do all these at the click of a button....

As opposed to four clicks?

GµårÐïåñ wrote:So much emphasis is put on fancy effects and newest and most coolest technology that text is quickly becoming an incidental portion of the website.

Which, if I'm not mistaken, is exactly what the OP was objecting to. Living in a cave in Afghanistan, I share his views and vision of an ideal world.
(Should I ask you why you posted your reply in text instead of in an image or marquee format? )

GµårÐïåñ wrote:let me say that to some extend the visual and extended coding used today to achieve a certain effect unfortunately would not all be functional without the "clutter" as poster called it

But the site could be designed to function without the effects, or offer both the clutter and a text-only (or low-graphic) version, as most did in the days when CPUs were slower and dial-up was the only connection. OP and I find the effects to be of no added value, but of negative value: distracting and annoying. And just *how* many security vulns have been introduced with all the new tech versus simple text and links?

We have a generation raised with TVs in their cribs and bedrooms, then video games etc., who need constant visual stimulation and find reading "boring". Which is why they can't read. Advertisers keep upping the ante to get one's attention as the threshold of that attention continually rises. Developers compete to outdo each other in creating more and more fancy effects. (no offense to your job, G.) Vicious cycle. When I raised my objections to new F3, a user responded that they found F2 "boring" (link unnecessary). I told him/her that maybe you should go to sites that you find interesting, then you won't need your *browser* to be an entertaining version. It's just a tool to get you to the site. I block most images at most sites, except for those that actually serve a purpose. I couldn't find the "transfer" button at my bank because one day, they replaced the word "transfer" with a snazzy image of the word "transfer", without putting an alt tag behind it. (G, did I get that last part right?) Eventually found it by idly moving the pointer and watching the status bar.

Not everything that can be done should be done. Newer is not always better. Smaller and lighter are better. I realize that all of this is an increasingly-minority viewpoint. Grateful I can still customize page views to a large extent.

Tom T. wrote:Which, if I'm not mistaken, is exactly what the OP was objecting to. Living in a cave in Afghanistan, I share his views and vision of an ideal world. (Should I ask you why you posted your reply in text instead of in an image or marquee format? )

Yes I believe it is and that's what I said, maybe I SHOULD have put it in a marquee Don't be silly!

Tom T. wrote:But the site could be designed to function without the effects, or offer both the clutter and a text-only (or low-graphic) version, as most did in the days when CPUs were slower and dial-up was the only connection. OP and I find the effects to be of no added value, but of negative value: distracting and annoying. And just *how* many security vulns have been introduced with all the new tech versus simple text and links?

Yes it can be done but rarely does anyone take the time to create or support EVERYONE and every configuration anymore. From a developement perspective it takes too much time to maintain two copies of a website, especially the bigger they get the more complex. Now some CMS have the option of allowing the user to tone it down and its built into their function, so takes the work away from the developer. Plus, some do it INTENTIONALLY so there is always that too.

Not everything that can be done should be done. Newer is not always better. Smaller and lighter are better. I realize that all of this is an increasingly-minority viewpoint. Grateful I can still customize page views to a large extent.

Agreed, but its done under the banner of progress.