Re: The Off Icon
Jon wrote: I've been through a dozen of these posts about 1.4's UX (wherein I learned that the developer takes quite an attitude toward complainers, whiners, and layabout do-no-gooders, so I'll expect a witty retort that the developer's been through millions of them). I wholeheartedly agree with the points above. I'll make a bullet list of wishes, since I want you to know I take this seriously and I'm not a whiner. Also I hope to be listened to. I generally love Firebug and have written emails complimenting it, and I have thanked the devs for their hard work and a great useful tool. So here we go: - Lose the on/off functionality. *Since this is an add-on* the close button shouldn't quit, or change settings in the background, etc etc. Want to quit Firebug? Tools-Add-ons-Disable. this is worse then what is going on now. You must restart firefox to have plugins disabled and enabled. and unfortunatly due to the nature of firebug being a debug utility, it dramatically slows down webpages. Up to atleast 2x slower. Turning FB on and off is a common occurance, and having to restart my browser everytime for thsi just doesn't make any sense. - Go back to the old visible/invisible paradigm rather than the new off/minimize paradigm. Call what you now consider the Minimize button's functionality the Close button. The minimize feature is superfluous if the close button does what any other addon's close button does, which is disappear (but continue to work for us when we need it in a few minutes.) i agree, i like the its on or its off, no minimize. if i want more screen realiestate i just detach FB from the tab - Firebug should run all panels, by default, for any domain, on any web page, on any tab. We can always set the preferences to disable for all pages or enable for all pages ummm no, firebug makes your html and css and js rendering super slow, as it checks and tracks all of this. - The Net tab should show me all the requests that have been going on before I displayed firebug, that means what happened while minimized, without refreshing the page. I thought this was the way it worked before which is why I'm surprised we need to refresh now. Did it not work that way before? Regardless, Firebug should always have been paying attention. The resources are minimal to do this and un- streamlining the add-on to gain 20K of resources is a poor trade. the internets don't work like that. There is more to resources then just RAM overhead. such as cpu cycles and networking stuff, as well as i/o bandwidth and such. How is firebug going to know about something when its not activated, coding ESP is not feasible. Im a big fan of not having software of plugis sniff my network connections with out me telliong it to do so on a specific address. - You seem to be convinced that people need to get used to new button placement even if they were poorly placed to begin with. You can categorize the interface as mimicking a standalone application (minimize restore and close, _ [] X), but you can also categorize this as an addon with its own rules as before - Plus if you keep moving buttons around and you piss off your current users simply to gain (millions of brand new???) users. who cares long as it does the job its not like anyone is paying for thsi shyt neways. ~kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
great compliment tool for firebug
i needed some more verbose network monitor for speed tests on some webapps, and came across thsi simple yet very useful tool Firefox Throttle https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5917 basically this util sits in your browser status bar and displays current up and down rates, with the addition to toggle on throttle limits for up and down independently. i know this has its own plugin, but something of this functionality would be extremely helpful if it was embedded into firebug. even just displaying current up and down in the tooltip when hovering over the FBicon would be a great addition. just some things to ponder. :) kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
disable for IE tab
okay, so i have a nifty plugin i use called IE tab which lets me switch between IE instance and FF instances within a FF browser tab. FB should be completely disabled natively when using an IE tab and not a FF tab. FB does not work at all when you use IE tab, obviously. A simple check should be made to see if this tab is using IE tab, and if so disable it for that tab. if you can figure out how to get FB to work with IE tab, thats even better, but i dont think its easily possible, as the IE tab just overide the expected DOM html, and injects a active x kinda object, whyich loads an instance of IE within FF, rather then loading IE in a separate windowed process. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: BUG: CTRL+F12 is overruled by Firefox
johnjbarton wrote: On WinXP CTRL+F12 still opens Firebug in a new window for me. In any case we won't change the key bindings. But you can: Firefox Tools Firebug Customize Shortcuts The bug reporting url is http://code.google.com/p/fbug/issues/list jjb On Jul 29, 10:49 am, jonas-e jonas.elleha...@gmail.com wrote: Is this the place to report bugs? Firebug 1.4.1 error with FF 3.5.1: CTRL+F12 is overruled by Firefox as undo close tab. Hence this shortcut no longer works with Firebug. With previous versions of Firefox, ctrl+F12 opens Firebug in a seperate window - which is something I need very often. By the way: Great great tool, thanks - I couldn't live without it! I use it every day at work for debugging and designing web applications. mine works in XP Pro sp3 k --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Using console.log for debugging causing errors on site
Laurakeet wrote: If I am using console.log for debugging locally do I need to make sure I remove those statements once I have pushed my code to a live web page? What if random users don't have firebug? Will it break my forms or other pages? thanks, Laura yeah, its prolly a good idea to remove those. there are some spiffy txt editors which can find and remove nodes of htm and such, i think crimison editor has a feature like this, its nice cuz it searches for text within multiple files using wildcards and like. leaving the code in there wont break anything, but i have seen firefox and IE throw some random errors on console logging stuff. for more complex apps, you can make a console.log wrapper function which calls this, then inside this wrapper function put a conditional to check if debug mode is on or off. So when you go to deploy onto production you can just toggle that boolean off, and it shouldn't spit that code out to your end users. Generally i just make it a habbit to remove all of it, as its not needed and wastes cpu cycles, and bytes. k --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: How do I publish my changes back to the live site?
Werth Sensei wrote: Hi All: I'm new to firebug, and WOW, it opens the world to me. I can find just about everything that I need to find and then change it with my web authoring software. However, I've found something on my site with firebug that I need to change that I CAN'T figure out the location of in my authoring software, so I would like to know after I test my change with firebug how I can then save that tested change directly to the web site, bypassing my authoring software. Please let me know and thank you all so much! ( I realize that this is probably the dumbest question ever, but I have searched quite a few website and this forum and couldn't find an answer on how to save changes to my web site with firebug.) Now, I am ready to receive your instructions so I can see just how dumb I feel right now that I can't find the SAVE CHANGES or PUBLISH CHANGES button in firebug. Talk to you all soon. Sincerely, Michael No question is a dumb question, only question not asked are dumb. For starters firebug is a debug utility for javascript and it is also used for inspecting html / DOM (document object model). Unlike your authoring software which is that, auhtoring software, it does not publish to your website or save the file to your file system. Nowadays web pages are a series of resources located on remote computers, and mashed together into a single url. Generally if you want to make some changes and compare it to something your editor spits out, then that would be called a diff. IE change some stuff in firebug, copy yoru changes to notepad, save them, then use a diff program to compare the changes line by line. if you find yourself using firebug to actually develope your website on, you are doing something wrong, ytou are using the wrong tool for the job. Yes firebug has and mimics alot of functions your IDE or authoring software has, but again its just a debugging utility, meaning its only mean to peer into what your working on. With that said, maybe tyou should try using a better authoring program, or learn how to get yours to do what you want. hope that helps a little kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Downgrading of Firebug possible?
Nicolas Hatier wrote: dm wrote: On a separate note, just as a nit, would it be possible to prevent firebug from closing, then reopening on reload? It's just a visual thing, but irritating in the same way as too much animation on a web page. AND it triggers a resize event on the web page, which may be annoying when trying to debug tricky jabascript-based UI... NH Thanks, d jabascript. nice typo. jabascript the hut. ROFL. sorry, i couldn't help myself =) kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Nice product. Icon sucks.
Kirby wrote: Seriously, I'm NOT complaining. I made a simple suggestion. What brought on the complaining was the essentially go f*ck yerself reply that I got back. My website has not been updated in AGES. It's not designed for firefox because, from a purely business aspect, I really don't care about support for FF. I spend my time doing other people's sites. Most of them are not designed for firefox because outside the geek zone, no one uses it. That whole nearly half number being floated around falls to pieces when you separate the wheat from the chaff: take that same poll, exclusing hackers, hobbiests, enthusiasts and linux zealots, and FF hardly makes a blip on the radar screen. Take that same poll and include only Corporate and Industrial users, and you find that Corporate America is decidedly IE and will be for a long time. And that's where I work. Corporate Intranets. That means IE. And, yeah, I do agree that changing boats after leaving the shore is risky. I'm OK with that. I'm just asking Is it ok with you that 99% of the people who look at your product are going to think 'ROACH'? If so, then Bob's yer uncle, and have a good time. But one way or another, ROACH is exactly what 99 out of 100 people are going think the instant they see your product. If you're OK with that, then more power to ya. And, yes. I am an information architech. (u. programmer+) I'd wager that I've written more code and implemented more systems than everyone else in this thread combined. And I am NOT kidding. Oh,... and have a nice day. ;-) On Jul 1, 3:26 pm, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: @ Mr. kirby you are an idiot. stop complain and being rude to people who volunteer there time. you should spend more time debugging your crappy looking website, www.wallaceinfo.com which doesn't work in FF. on a side note im a professional graphic designer / artist and engineer. i love the FB logo, i think its mad cute. @kirby, i betcha didn't know that it also does more damage to your brand by changing it out after it has beem saturated in the market. secondly why does it matter for something that doesn't get sold. You should download the source and rebrand it with some fancy graphics you think are kewl, and sell it. See how that works out for yea. prolly not well, as no one cares what the logo looks like. to me and prolly 99.9 of other engineers its merely a button to push when you wanna debug a website. i actually take a little offense to you calling yoruself a information systems archtect. do you even know what that is or what they do? kara your site is still broken in FF, you should spend more time priotizing your tasks then bitching to us about how you personally dont like the look of a bug because you have some type of bug phobia or something or have a hunch that the rest of the world might not use or accept an open source project used mainly by developers whom couldn't give two shyts about a bug icon for the app, i think alot of these dev wouldn't give a shyt one way or another no matter what it was, atleast its not just txt saying FB or something lame like that. to me it seems you would rather use this discussion group more as your personal soap box, so that you can point your finger at people and devs here, while you rant about your superior coding abilities. news flash, if FF doesn't matter so much, why are you using a FF plugin, and further more why are you posting on a dev group for this said FF plugin...?? This plugin is designed for web app devs whom use FF, not the mainstream end user, explain y it matters? kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Nice product. Icon sucks.
sir_brizz wrote: Actually, even on a site I run that is targeted at young mothers, still a massive portion of the reported browsers by Google Analytics are Firefox (and by massive I mean greater than 20%). Ignoring Firefox is even more stupid than ignoring IE6, since Firefox pretty closely follows web standards and your site being utterly broken in Firefox is probably indicative of your disregard for the standards. On Jul 16, 11:02 am, Kirby ki...@wallaceinfo.com wrote: Seriously, I'm NOT complaining. I made a simple suggestion. What brought on the complaining was the essentially go f*ck yerself reply that I got back. My website has not been updated in AGES. It's not designed for firefox because, from a purely business aspect, I really don't care about support for FF. I spend my time doing other people's sites. Most of them are not designed for firefox because outside the geek zone, no one uses it. That whole nearly half number being floated around falls to pieces when you separate the wheat from the chaff: take that same poll, exclusing hackers, hobbiests, enthusiasts and linux zealots, and FF hardly makes a blip on the radar screen. Take that same poll and include only Corporate and Industrial users, and you find that Corporate America is decidedly IE and will be for a long time. And that's where I work. Corporate Intranets. That means IE. And, yeah, I do agree that changing boats after leaving the shore is risky. I'm OK with that. I'm just asking Is it ok with you that 99% of the people who look at your product are going to think 'ROACH'? If so, then Bob's yer uncle, and have a good time. But one way or another, ROACH is exactly what 99 out of 100 people are going think the instant they see your product. If you're OK with that, then more power to ya. And, yes. I am an information architech. (u. programmer+) I'd wager that I've written more code and implemented more systems than everyone else in this thread combined. And I am NOT kidding. Oh,... and have a nice day. ;-) On Jul 1, 3:26 pm, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: @ Mr. kirby you are an idiot. stop complain and being rude to people who volunteer there time. you should spend more time debugging your crappy looking website, www.wallaceinfo.com which doesn't work in FF. on a side note im a professional graphic designer / artist and engineer. i love the FB logo, i think its mad cute. @kirby, i betcha didn't know that it also does more damage to your brand by changing it out after it has beem saturated in the market. secondly why does it matter for something that doesn't get sold. You should download the source and rebrand it with some fancy graphics you think are kewl, and sell it. See how that works out for yea. prolly not well, as no one cares what the logo looks like. to me and prolly 99.9 of other engineers its merely a button to push when you wanna debug a website. i actually take a little offense to you calling yoruself a information systems archtect. do you even know what that is or what they do? kara Thank you that wwas what i was trying to get at, you put it more elequent than i k --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Nice product. Icon sucks.
Steven Roussey wrote: Any chance someone might take, oh... four minutes and change it a bit. Any chance you might take, oh... four minutes and change it a bit?? Offer a better icon? No?? Have you asked Firefox to add neato flames?? Did they they immediately say, oh gosh, you are sooo right, we'll change it right away? Just for fun, I called M$ and asked them to change their corporate logo. They haven't done it yet. Maybe I'll wait to vent until tomorrow... And I give *them* money for their products. They should do it faster... ;) -s yeah you know what i did, just figure out how to hack M$ logos in the sys resource files, honestly if this icon bothers you so much, im so tempted to make a custome FB logo plugin that lets you use images from say flicr or something, then we can all make our own and no more bitching about these stupid f'ing logos. Man, why doesn't someone fix some bugs in here ^_^ side note, IF we aren't to use the current c ute bug for an icon, what did this hack want us to make it?? whats his suggestion, alien space ship? or a lemming k --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Nice product. Icon sucks.
Pete Wilson wrote: --- On Thu, 7/16/09, Tripp Lilley tripplil...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 13:02, Kirbyki...@wallaceinfo.com wrote: I'd wager that I've written more code ... Gee whiz, mister! You're a ... a Subjunctivist! But that's so ... weaseley! so wishy-washy! Doncha' think? Kirb, get outta' the woulds! Step up and lay your treasure right on the table, as Tripp so vividly proposes: if you're going brag about your dick in a room full of male porn stars, you'd better be ready to whip it out and back it up. Ha-ha-ha! Beautiful! emend level=slight male OR female -- don't need to own a dick to rate a dick, ime. /emend -- Pete, always ready with the ad hominem, the OT http://www.pwilson.net/ well if you ever need a report made for your M$ access DB you use at home to manage your grocery list, let him know, he is a whiz at changing the banners at the top of these reports so they match your mood. honestly though, overall i feel kirby has really contributed alot here, i feel so honored to have such an experience and well versed information archetect communicate these prolific ideal to us, the lowly testers and devs of a crap plugin to an inferior browser used by no one in the world. now let me grace you mr kirby with some of my intelliect this is u http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_architecture as you claim is the 21st century glorified web master, nothing more, this however http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_architect is what i am, as are a majorty of other devs and testers are on thsi group. there is a huge difference. yours is considered web dev and html crap, ours is engineering, have a nice day. k --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Nice product. Icon sucks.
Kirby wrote: Again, consider the audience. Your audience is overwhelmingly NON Corporate. And even in that young, hip audience, FF is garnering only 20%. I'm really suprised it isn't higher, given your audience. But this is only proving my point. Split out the business/industry/ corporate users from the tech/geek/enthusiast/zealot users, and you will find the former overwhelmingly IE (and staying so), and the latter is the only sector where FF is going to gain any momentum. As for my site bring broken in FF and that indicating my lack of standards: Dude, you have NO idea! ;-) I'm so non-standard on that site that there isn't even a DOCTYPE set. The whole thing is running in IE Browser quirks mode. And I'm Ok with that. Know why? Cause I can trust that 99% of my target audience will see it jsut fine because they are using a browser that I can anticipate and predict it's behaviour. And predictable behaviour beats the heck outta any neato product no matter how standards compliant it tries to be. None of them are. Pick one, and you can predict its behaviour, and know how to work around it and what to avoid. Again, I have a very specific IE-Only target demographic. How's your site doing? What's it do? How long has it been running? Is it a commercial endeavour? I'm just always curious about other people's projects. Later... On Jul 16, 12:11 pm, sir_brizz bj.car...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, even on a site I run that is targeted at young mothers, still a massive portion of the reported browsers by Google Analytics are Firefox (and by massive I mean greater than 20%). Ignoring Firefox is even more stupid than ignoring IE6, since Firefox pretty closely follows web standards and your site being utterly broken in Firefox is probably indicative of your disregard for the standards. On Jul 16, 11:02 am, Kirby ki...@wallaceinfo.com wrote: Seriously, I'm NOT complaining. I made a simple suggestion. What brought on the complaining was the essentially go f*ck yerself reply that I got back. My website has not been updated in AGES. It's not designed for firefox because, from a purely business aspect, I really don't care about support for FF. I spend my time doing other people's sites. Most of them are not designed for firefox because outside the geek zone, no one uses it. That whole nearly half number being floated around falls to pieces when you separate the wheat from the chaff: take that same poll, exclusing hackers, hobbiests, enthusiasts and linux zealots, and FF hardly makes a blip on the radar screen. Take that same poll and include only Corporate and Industrial users, and you find that Corporate America is decidedly IE and will be for a long time. And that's where I work. Corporate Intranets. That means IE. And, yeah, I do agree that changing boats after leaving the shore is risky. I'm OK with that. I'm just asking Is it ok with you that 99% of the people who look at your product are going to think 'ROACH'? If so, then Bob's yer uncle, and have a good time. But one way or another, ROACH is exactly what 99 out of 100 people are going think the instant they see your product. If you're OK with that, then more power to ya. And, yes. I am an information architech. (u. programmer+) I'd wager that I've written more code and implemented more systems than everyone else in this thread combined. And I am NOT kidding. Oh,... and have a nice day. ;-) On Jul 1, 3:26 pm, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: @ Mr. kirby you are an idiot. stop complain and being rude to people who volunteer there time. you should spend more time debugging your crappy looking website, www.wallaceinfo.com which doesn't work in FF. on a side note im a professional graphic designer / artist and engineer. i love the FB logo, i think its mad cute. @kirby, i betcha didn't know that it also does more damage to your brand by changing it out after it has beem saturated in the market. secondly why does it matter for something that doesn't get sold. You should download the source and rebrand it with some fancy graphics you think are kewl, and sell it. See how that works out for yea. prolly not well, as no one cares what the logo looks like. to me and prolly 99.9 of other engineers its merely a button to push when you wanna debug a website. i actually take a little offense to you calling yoruself a information systems archtect. do you even know what that is or what they do? kara- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - your site is non standard compliant cuz you dont know what the fukk you are doing, html pages are in essence xml documents, this shows your understand or lack of how xml document work. The inability to work to standards
Re: Firebug or GreaseMonkey bug?
sir_brizz wrote: With latest version of Firebug (1.4.0) and GreaseMonkey, I get these message at console. Greasemonkey getFirebugConsole() error: (new TypeError(context is undefined, chrome://firebug/content/ consoleInjector.js, 95)) That a GreaseMonkey issue? i think so, check this out http://greasemonkey.devjavu.com/ticket/232 ??? kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Nice product. Icon sucks.
from the chaff: take that same poll, exclusing hackers, hobbiests, enthusiasts and linux zealots, and FF hardly makes a blip on the radar screen. Take that same poll and include only Corporate and Industrial users, and you find that Corporate America is decidedly IE and will be for a long time. And that's where I work. Corporate Intranets. That means IE. And, yeah, I do agree that changing boats after leaving the shore is risky. I'm OK with that. I'm just asking Is it ok with you that 99% of the people who look at your product are going to think 'ROACH'? If so, then Bob's yer uncle, and have a good time. But one way or another, ROACH is exactly what 99 out of 100 people are going think the instant they see your product. If you're OK with that, then more power to ya. And, yes. I am an information architech. (u. programmer+) I'd wager that I've written more code and implemented more systems than everyone else in this thread combined. And I am NOT kidding. Oh,... and have a nice day. ;-) On Jul 1, 3:26 pm, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: @ Mr. kirby you are an idiot. stop complain and being rude to people who volunteer there time. you should spend more time debugging your crappy looking website, www.wallaceinfo.com which doesn't work in FF. on a side note im a professional graphic designer / artist and engineer. i love the FB logo, i think its mad cute. @kirby, i betcha didn't know that it also does more damage to your brand by changing it out after it has beem saturated in the market. secondly why does it matter for something that doesn't get sold. You should download the source and rebrand it with some fancy graphics you think are kewl, and sell it. See how that works out for yea. prolly not well, as no one cares what the logo looks like. to me and prolly 99.9 of other engineers its merely a button to push when you wanna debug a website. i actually take a little offense to you calling yoruself a information systems archtect. do you even know what that is or what they do? kara- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Nice product. Icon sucks.
WTF is IE Browser quirks mode. is that an option in the file menu or something k --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why doesn't inspect hide/minimize the firebug window anymore?
Jay wrote: I don't know how to be any clearer. What part are you struggling with understanding? In 1.3.x and down: Hit the Inspect button ... Firebug cedes focus to the Firefox tab it's inspecting (it either blurs itself or calls focus on the Firefox tab it's inspecting [I'm guess the latter]) In 1.4: Hit the Inspect button ... The Firebug window stays exactly where it is ... it does nothing ... you have to minimize it to or move it to get it out of the way of the Firefox tab you want to inspect. -Jay On Jul 17, 11:36 am, johnjbarton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote: It would be helpful you can be very specific about what you mean by this behavior. jjb On Jul 16, 6:18 pm, Jay jay.mos...@gmail.com wrote: When you hit the Inspect button in the Firebug window ... this was the way it functioned for me up until the 1.4 release. Now that I think about it, it was more like the Firefox tab that was about to be inspected regained focus... Am I the only one who saw this behavior in the old version? -Jay On Jul 13, 10:49 am, johnjbarton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote: I've not seen or heard of this hide on inspect behavior. Under what conditions would the UI hide? jjb On Jul 13, 6:08 am, Jay jay.mos...@gmail.com wrote: Why doesn't inspect hide/minimize the firebug window anymore? You used to be able to click the inspect button and it would then show you the current firefox tab. Now firebug just stares at you dumbly and you have to minimize it to get it out of the way. I assume this change was a request but can't we leave the original functionality in and have it as an option toggle? i have FB 1.3.3 and 1.4b7 and neither minimize the way you describe, what your saying is that when you click inspect you want it to minimize FB so you can view the entire page? the feedback i get when click on inspect, it focus the html tab in FB and highlights the dom section in relation to what dom object im hovering overo n the page. i do think this would be a good option minimize on inspect, as there are certain times where i would find this convient. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Nice product. Icon sucks.
Seriously, folks. If you want to get market penetration (shut up, Tripp. Don't even go there...;-) a little attention to naming convention might be helpful. I'm not gonna rush out and buy easy peasy to trust my business data to. I'm not sure how much trust I should put in a product whose author thought a suitable animal to describe it was a lizzard. i have GIECO insurance is that bad? they have a lizzard as a mascot? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why doesn't inspect hide/minimize the firebug window anymore?
Jay wrote: Hi Kara: I believe you've got the idea. I'm surprised to hear that your 1.3 version doesn't work as mine did. Do you have Firebug 1.3's window directly over the top of Firefox? Or do you have one on one monitor and the other on another monitor? okay that makes more sense, i was able to reproduce your bug. Yeah that is very annoying, i changed around my workstation a bit, i used ot have multiple monitors per one computer, so i would always have my FB in another window. But now i have multiple computers all with one monitor using synergy to link em. you are correct, 1.4 doesn't bring the FF window to focus, 1.3 does, is there a bug report filed for this? Serious question: when you click the Inspect button isn't your next action to click an element on the page in Firefox itself? Should you have to move/minimize Firebug on your own? 1.3 seemed to move itself out of the way (for me at least) ... 1.4 doesn't. Was curious if this was a bug, intentional or if something had gone haywire in my 1.3 installation that had actually provided a beneficial result. if FB is inline within your browser, when inspecting, it should minimize automatically. Which it doesn't, so i cant tell you how many times i have to click minimize when inspecting, and then focus some off inspect when i go to minimize, therefore starting this vicous cycle of clicking till i get it right. SO... generally i just leave it inline, but drag the height o like 100px or less. i would actually like to see functionality of inspect work like 1.3 with an addition of auto minimize on inspect. This should be an option, minimize when inspecting (for inline FB isntances). kara -Jay On Jul 17, 1:01 pm, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: Jay wrote: I don't know how to be any clearer. What part are you struggling with understanding? In 1.3.x and down: Hit the Inspect button ... Firebug cedes focus to the Firefox tab it's inspecting (it either blurs itself or calls focus on the Firefox tab it's inspecting [I'm guess the latter]) In 1.4: Hit the Inspect button ... The Firebug window stays exactly where it is ... it does nothing ... you have to minimize it to or move it to get it out of the way of the Firefox tab you want to inspect. -Jay On Jul 17, 11:36 am, johnjbarton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote: It would be helpful you can be very specific about what you mean by this behavior. jjb On Jul 16, 6:18 pm, Jay jay.mos...@gmail.com wrote: When you hit the Inspect button in the Firebug window ... this was the way it functioned for me up until the 1.4 release. Now that I think about it, it was more like the Firefox tab that was about to be inspected regained focus... Am I the only one who saw this behavior in the old version? -Jay On Jul 13, 10:49 am, johnjbarton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote: I've not seen or heard of this hide on inspect behavior. Under what conditions would the UI hide? jjb On Jul 13, 6:08 am, Jay jay.mos...@gmail.com wrote: Why doesn't inspect hide/minimize the firebug window anymore? You used to be able to click the inspect button and it would then show you the current firefox tab. Now firebug just stares at you dumbly and you have to minimize it to get it out of the way. I assume this change was a request but can't we leave the original functionality in and have it as an option toggle? i have FB 1.3.3 and 1.4b7 and neither minimize the way you describe, what your saying is that when you click inspect you want it to minimize FB so you can view the entire page? the feedback i get when click on inspect, it focus the html tab in FB and highlights the dom section in relation to what dom object im hovering overo n the page. i do think this would be a good option minimize on inspect, as there are certain times where i would find this convient. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why doesn't inspect hide/minimize the firebug window anymore?
johnjbarton wrote: Changing focus is not releated to minimize. jjb On Jul 17, 10:06 am, Jay jay.mos...@gmail.com wrote: You're splitting hairs about something that in the end has the same result. I have no idea whether Firebug minimizes itself, blurs itself or focuses the Firefox tab that it's inspecting. The point is that whether Firebug 1.3.x cedes focus, minimizes or launches itself to Pluto it manages to remove itself from view the second the user hits the Inspect button so that the user can clearly see the tab he's inspecting. I didn't see this in the changelog and couldn't find any active discussion about it which is why I brought it up here. Jay On Jul 17, 12:54 pm, johnjbarton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote: On Jul 17, 9:46 am, Jay jay.mos...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know how to be any clearer. What part are you struggling with understanding? In 1.3.x and down: Hit the Inspect button ... Firebug cedes focus to the Firefox tab it's inspecting (it either blurs itself or calls focus on the Firefox tab it's inspecting [I'm guess the latter]) According to this description I would say in 1.3, inspect causes focus to change. This description says nothing about Firebug minimizing. In 1.4: Hit the Inspect button ... The Firebug window stays exactly where it is ... it does nothing ... you have to minimize it to or move it to get it out of the way of the Firefox tab you want to inspect. This description says nothing about focus. So I conclude that you are reporting that 1.3 changed focus but 1.4 does not. That does not match the subject line. jjb i think jay meant to use focus not minimize on the initial post. we need a glossary lol. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: disable firebug 1.4.0b4 per domain
Matt wrote: I would like to have the ability to block Firebug for specific sites and be on by default for all other websites. My problem now is that for most web applications that I work on, I want Firebug to be enabled--mostly because of the error count in the browser's status bar (or else a lot of time is wasted, not knowing a page has JavaScript or CSS errors on it) but also because it is an extremely powerful and useful extension. However, I also participate in many public developer discussion mailing groups so I need to have an email account where spam filtering is really good and that means I need to use Gmail. Unfortunately, Gmail is non-functional/non- responsive when Firebug is enabled. Currently, I have 2 competing choices: 1. Have Firebug off by default and lose time by not being notified of JS and CSS errors 2. Have Firebug on by default and lose time when trying to check my email waiting for Gmail to time out and then once it finally lets the Firefox process respond to user interaction, temporarily disable Firebug Even just a simple about:config preference to define a regex for URL matching would be perfect for me. Please consider this. In the mean time, does anyone know of any extensions that can report the JS/CSS error count in the status bar like Firebug does? If I had an extension like this, then I would be perfectly okay with choice #1. Thank you, Matt On Jul 7, 11:38 pm, Nick Foster n...@cinergix.com wrote: [Snip] I think the thing that is missing is the ability for Firebug to maintain it's state between tab switches - like becoming a background process. I am not sure if this is a bug or part of the new feature. I don't know what you mean here. Firebug maintains meta-data for each tab you've activated it on. But if you select a tab that is not active, like GMail, then Firebug suspends. Background activity on the other tabs is not tracked while suspended. Note that the Firefox tabs are an illusion: there is only one process here and one set of debug APIs. We cannot suspend GMail and not the other tabs (well actually I think we could get close by filtering, but we don't do it yet). I understand the idea of single processes. See below your steps (below) as I am not experiencing what you are describing. Either way perhaps you can help me by suggesting the settings I should use to enable Firebug permanently on certain tabs butdisableit permanently on other tabs, and I still want to be able to minimise Firebug (but it carries on running) for the tabs it is activated on - as far as I can see this is only possible with domain based activation? I guess you are another victim of the [X] change. I'll spare you the detail and go right to the suggestion: 1. Uncheck On for all and Off for all. 2. On the sites you want to debug, open Firebug. That activates Firebug for the site. 3. Don't push [X]. That deactivates the site, you don't want it. 4. To minimize, either use the [_] minimize function or hit the Firebug Status bar icon. 5. To unminimize, hit the Firebug Status bar icon. I followed your steps exactly and I think I get it - it seems to be working as 1.3 now. I think the thing that was confusing me was the Off for all Web Pages On for all Web Pages menu options. It seems it is really a three way switch: * On for all Web Pages * Off for all Web Pages * User Activated per Web Page (switching the first two off doesn't instinctively mean the third) Just having the two options in the menu caused confusion and so perhaps you should extend it to three mutually exclusive options. Also can you clarify what 'Web Page' means? Does it mean domain - as in two FF tabs both on the same domain will have Firebug switched on or does it mean on a FF tab by tab basis? Will Firebug remember my settings between FF restarts ie. Session Manager style? - It seems too but perhaps you can confirm. Cheers Nick Note that minimize is a property of Firebug now, not of the site/tab. F12 is bound to the same toggle by default. jjb sounds like maybe firebug should have a quiet or stealth mode, which it just sniffs for errors, but doesn't rerender the DOM or any of that fanciness. IE doesn't create a super resource load on the browser. FB typically makes evrtying run twice as slow. Ive run in the same damn problem as you, arrrgh. My recomendation (dont take this the wrong way) use thunderbird to check your gmail. Yes i know what you are thinking, but for now it solves the problem. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at
Re: Nice product. Icon sucks.
Bob Hassinger wrote: On Jul 17, 2009, at 12:30 PM, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: WTF is IE Browser quirks mode. is that an option in the file menu or something k That is a pretty important thing for people concerned with cross browser/cross version compatibility to know about. Maybe I missed a smily in there somewhere? :-) you did, i am very familiar with http://www.quirksmode.org/ in fact that site is what broken me of my non standard compliancy, i realize that the world doesn't need another cowgirl web deverloper, as you are just overwhelmed by all of the quirks this guy has discovered/ kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
off button has grown on me
okay so at first i opposed the off text to the off button, but after using it for a few days now, i don't mind it, and infact i prefer it as i now rarely click on the wrong button IE min or max. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: off button has grown on me
Luke Maurer wrote: Well, it's certainly better than having no text (though the new icon helps anyway). But I still find it akin to a Norman door. http://www.flickr.com/photos/authentic/175678013/ - Luke On Jul 17, 11:02 am, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: okay so at first i opposed the off text to the off button, but after using it for a few days now, i don't mind it, and infact i prefer it as i now rarely click on the wrong button IE min or max. kara LOL. maybe just the text Off would look better? kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: off button has grown on me
sir_brizz wrote: Same, although its size can be a little annoying sometimes, the Off text at least forces me to remember not to click it :) On Jul 17, 12:02 pm, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: okay so at first i opposed the off text to the off button, but after using it for a few days now, i don't mind it, and infact i prefer it as i now rarely click on the wrong button IE min or max. kara is it possible to shift the icon to the right a tad bit. if you take a closer look at the left margin between the bug button and the broder its about 6px maybe, the margin on the right is about 8 maybe 10px. i know its trivial, but it looks shifted a bit. k --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why doesn't inspect hide/minimize the firebug window anymore?
Jay wrote: Thanks for looking into this and taking the time to reproduce this Kara. I really appreciate it. I'll file a bug report on http://code.google.com/p/fbug/issues/list later today. Thanks again! -Jay On Jul 17, 1:47 pm, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: Jay wrote: Hi Kara: I believe you've got the idea. I'm surprised to hear that your 1.3 version doesn't work as mine did. Do you have Firebug 1.3's window directly over the top of Firefox? Or do you have one on one monitor and the other on another monitor? okay that makes more sense, i was able to reproduce your bug. Yeah that is very annoying, i changed around my workstation a bit, i used ot have multiple monitors per one computer, so i would always have my FB in another window. But now i have multiple computers all with one monitor using synergy to link em. you are correct, 1.4 doesn't bring the FF window to focus, 1.3 does, is there a bug report filed for this? Serious question: when you click the Inspect button isn't your next action to click an element on the page in Firefox itself? Should you have to move/minimize Firebug on your own? 1.3 seemed to move itself out of the way (for me at least) ... 1.4 doesn't. Was curious if this was a bug, intentional or if something had gone haywire in my 1.3 installation that had actually provided a beneficial result. if FB is inline within your browser, when inspecting, it should minimize automatically. Which it doesn't, so i cant tell you how many times i have to click minimize when inspecting, and then focus some off inspect when i go to minimize, therefore starting this vicous cycle of clicking till i get it right. SO... generally i just leave it inline, but drag the height o like 100px or less. i would actually like to see functionality of inspect work like 1.3 with an addition of auto minimize on inspect. This should be an option, minimize when inspecting (for inline FB isntances). kara -Jay On Jul 17, 1:01 pm, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: Jay wrote: I don't know how to be any clearer. What part are you struggling with understanding? In 1.3.x and down: Hit the Inspect button ... Firebug cedes focus to the Firefox tab it's inspecting (it either blurs itself or calls focus on the Firefox tab it's inspecting [I'm guess the latter]) In 1.4: Hit the Inspect button ... The Firebug window stays exactly where it is ... it does nothing ... you have to minimize it to or move it to get it out of the way of the Firefox tab you want to inspect. -Jay On Jul 17, 11:36 am, johnjbarton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote: It would be helpful you can be very specific about what you mean by this behavior. jjb On Jul 16, 6:18 pm, Jay jay.mos...@gmail.com wrote: When you hit the Inspect button in the Firebug window ... this was the way it functioned for me up until the 1.4 release. Now that I think about it, it was more like the Firefox tab that was about to be inspected regained focus... Am I the only one who saw this behavior in the old version? -Jay On Jul 13, 10:49 am, johnjbarton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote: I've not seen or heard of this hide on inspect behavior. Under what conditions would the UI hide? jjb On Jul 13, 6:08 am, Jay jay.mos...@gmail.com wrote: Why doesn't inspect hide/minimize the firebug window anymore? You used to be able to click the inspect button and it would then show you the current firefox tab. Now firebug just stares at you dumbly and you have to minimize it to get it out of the way. I assume this change was a request but can't we leave the original functionality in and have it as an option toggle? i have FB 1.3.3 and 1.4b7 and neither minimize the way you describe, what your saying is that when you click inspect you want it to minimize FB so you can view the entire page? the feedback i get when click on inspect, it focus the html tab in FB and highlights the dom section in relation to what dom object im hovering overo n the page. i do think this would be a good option minimize on inspect, as there are certain times where i would find this convient. kara awesome... atleast we have accomplished something for the day... verses some other threads that have been going on ^_^ kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group
Re: disable firebug 1.4.0b4 per domain
johnjbarton wrote: On Jul 17, 10:53 am, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: ... sounds like maybe firebug should have a quiet or stealth mode, which it just sniffs for errors, but doesn't rerender the DOM or any of that fanciness. IE doesn't create a super resource load on the browser. FB typically makes evrtying run twice as slow. With changes in Firefox we can't assign errors to the correct window with out the Script panel enabled and with the Script panel enabled eval() processing is on by default. If you don't use the JS debugger for eval() you can try setting Firebug Script limiter(all) to static. jjb is there a way we could link all of these relate prefernces to one master option toggle, like a button to have FB run on the most minimist settings? Would the most minimal settings to FB yeild accepatble load times and such. (Maybe use gmail as the acid test?)?? maybe stealth mode could just report on whats going on with firefox's error console??? kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Nice product. Icon sucks.
Kirby wrote: No. HTML pages are HTML pages. XHTML pages are more like XML. But ultimately, the only thing that is XML is XML. You really aren't lsitening to me. My site is non std compliant because I made it that way. There's absolutely no sense in taking the extra time and expense to fill a gap that doesn't exist. And that is exactly the mentality behind the zealot mindset. They cower at the foot of compliance without ever even asking themselves, is there any need for such extra time, work and expense? I need to drive a nail. But we want to hold meetings on whether I should use the roofing hammer that I already have on hand, or wait until a suitable sledge hammer can be developed. You code to meet the need of the user, not to meet the standards of the tool you just WANT to use. I don't go out and buy tools and then try to figure out what I can build. I decide on what I want to build and I use ANY tool that lets me do it, and the one I'll use is the one that does the job in the quickest and most efficient manner. For a specific example that you've cited: my site (so you think anyway) would not be easily scalable in size. But it was known from the beginning that it will never grow beyond it's current size. Not ever. Not under any circumstance. The whole thing was written, start to finish, in one evening, to meet the needs of one specific group of people. And that ain't FireFox users. Government works the way you think. And we see the results of that group-think. who cares, this is a firebug dev group, if you aren't gonna talk directly related to FB please stop spaming the group the only thing i gathered from all of this, is that you think our icon is silly cuz you think it looks like a cockroach or lizard. i asked then, what is your suggestion to change it to still waiting on a response... and with that i bid you good day sir k --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Nice product. Icon sucks.
Kirby wrote: Wow. That got smarmy. What I am is a 25-year consultant for EDS, CSC, Bell Aerospace/ Textron, UtiliCorp United, Deloitte Touche, the last twelve years of which have been independent consulting under the Wallace Info name. I have done intelligence work for both the FBI and also my State Narcotics Bureau. Every single prescription written by any doctor, and filled in any pharmacy in the State of Oklahoma, is processed through a system that I wrote. All of Clear Channel Television's TV station's traffic, scheduling and contract management, from Washington State, to South Florida are run on an intranet that I wrote. I think they keep recipies in it too! A large portion of UtiliCorp United natural gas logistics and nominations system is run on software that I developed. Add to that the literally hundreds (so many I've lost count of them) of databases, websites, intranets, pieces of software, systems, and whatnot... Currently, we are working on getting all 8 of our locations tied together on VPN, through the cloud. (I know, that was kinda unnecessary...) This is going to involve tying half the business running on linux to the other half running on Windows Server. I am at the moment also working on building our SQL Server 2008 cluster and getting log shipping setup so we can hot swap a SQL Server when the VPN is ready. And, occasionally, I take work on the site developing websites. Is that the bit you are refering to when you say I am a glorified webmaster, nothing more...? Just wanting to be clear, before I make any comment to address that. seriously who the f cares.unless you have a /_real_/ suggestion, please stop wasting our time. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Firebug 1.5a14 and 1.4b10
alfonsoml wrote: On Jul 15, 2:44 am, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote: Icon updates to finish 1.4:http://blog.getfirebug.com/?p=282 jjb This sentence worries me a little: In Firebug 1.5, we plan to have break on next in all panels, doing different cool things. Having a button that does different things depending on where you are is likely to create as much confusion as the change to the Close/Off button in 1.4 I really don't know what you have planned, but I would beg you to please think carefully about it. For most of the people Firebug is just a tool, they don't want to spend time learning all the things that are changed between releases. In fact, I bet that lots of people would be pleased if they could just run 1.1 or 1.2 with very little changes to how it worked. We are slow animals, and once we learn our way we might be too stubborn. from what i learned in UI classes in college was that it is very bad to change dynamically change the functionality of activation components. IE do not have one button that looks the same providing different functionality based on the state, to get around this you need to change the look and feel of the button to match the state. food for thought kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
whats up with the Off text
whats the deal with the Off text to the right of the icon to close firebug. This is overly redundant and doesn't provide users with any additional feedback onto what the site does, Tooltips are good enough, if someone cant figure out how to read the tooltip they prolly shouldn't be using firebug. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: icon colors
johnjbarton wrote: On Jul 15, 9:13 am, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: ... since we are on the topic of icons, how much work would it be to have the firebug activation icon in your browser switch to a firefly on its back when its off rather then just have it grey, you know like what bugs look like when they are dead. This would be cute, and funny. just a random idea. A practical reason to use icon orientation rather than just color is that some users cannot detect the color difference easily due to differences in eyesight. jjb understood, however i thought tooltips were designed originally for accessiblity. Honestly though at the end of the day, long as it does its job Fb that is, im a happy camper. k --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: icon colors
Mike Collins wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com mailto:karacu...@gmail.com wrote: johnjbarton wrote: On Jul 15, 9:13 am, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com mailto:karacu...@gmail.com wrote: ... since we are on the topic of icons, how much work would it be to have the firebug activation icon in your browser switch to a firefly on its back when its off rather then just have it grey, you know like what bugs look like when they are dead. This would be cute, and funny. just a random idea. A practical reason to use icon orientation rather than just color is that some users cannot detect the color difference easily due to differences in eyesight. jjb understood, however i thought tooltips were designed originally for accessiblity. Honestly though at the end of the day, long as it does its job Fb that is, im a happy camper. k The point of having the icon change color, is, I assume, to be able to tell at a glance whether Firebug is on or off, so having to hover for a tooltip doesn't really work there. Of course, I can't really tell how this works for other people, but I personally cannot tell the difference with the orange and grey bugs unless I look at them side-by-side. I really like the dead bug idea, I just wish I had the design skills to make the icon. mc i dunno, these are just some suggestions from what ive read though this on going activation and icon discussion. The red and blue color suggestion i made, was more for distinguishing from the close button from the other two, so users whom aren't color blind have a less chance of clickinbg the wrong button. I personally can see the orange to grey difference, however others like yourself dont notice it as easily which is y i suggested changing the shape of the icon to a dead bug on its back. as far as graphics go, ill see what i can whip up that looks neet. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: icon colors
Bob Hassinger wrote: If we can relate Firebug to firefly, then note a firefly blinks only when it is active and stays dark when it is inactive. How about an icon that reflects that analogy? that is a great idea, i think having firebug blink like every so many seconds would be kewl, pretty easy to do too as far as gfx are concerned. To me this seems very clever, which reflects how clever the tool is in addition. Watching all this dialog go back and forth about the UI I keep thinking a significant part of the problem for me is that the UI is not documented (and it keeps changing without documentation of the changes). At least there is no documentation to speak of that is readily at hand when it is in use. The result is that the user learns the interface by discovery and implication, and discovers changes by the same process. Between analogs that do not match individual understandings, changes from one release to another, and bugs that lead to incorrect mental models of what is going on the tool becomes difficult to use and evokes the flood of objections. i cant count how many questions or posts ive read about bugs whihc are just users not knowing how to use the interface in general or a changed and revised UI (IE the new fb beta version) I think understanding what is going on in those terms might help everyone get closer to a common view of what is going on and what is needed. There are a pretty complicated set of concepts going on in Firebug as to states and so on. People need to at least know what is intended so they can adapt their mental models and they can differentiate between misunderstandings and bugs. i think in a way thats what all of these discussions are evolving into. Firebug needs to be easily discoverable and that means it has to draw on established interface paradigms. People bring established understandings of what various interface elements do in an app or tool, and what states to expect in an app. Having different states that are not obvious, and different effects for common UI elements has to be avoided, or at a minimum well documented. personally speaking i haven't really noticed any majoy UI revisions or changes, other then the activation model and minor polishing, it took me about 2 mins to get used to the new version. I think putting together a doc guide and using that as a design and implementat`ion litmus would be excellant and prolly clear up atleats half of these invalid discussion posts. Less seriously: Firebug needs a couple of things that would relieve the maintainers of a large part of the messages and questions and give them lots more time to actually develop. The new user must sign a release acknowledging that Firebug can not change the code on a host site before they can use the tool. Second, Firebug needs a big button that installs in a new profile. It would be good if it would be automatically invoked when the user runs into a problem too... ;-) i agree with you on that one, i think its important to dumb the tool down during the install, meaning directly tell users that this t ool can not and will not change code on servers, that is a major pitfall to new web app dev's. Knowing is half the battle. =) Bob On Jul 15, 2009, at 12:28 PM, johnjbarton wrote: On Jul 15, 9:13 am, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: ... since we are on the topic of icons, how much work would it be to have the firebug activation icon in your browser switch to a firefly on its back when its off rather then just have it grey, you know like what bugs look like when they are dead. This would be cute, and funny. just a random idea. A practical reason to use icon orientation rather than just color is that some users cannot detect the color difference easily due to differences in eyesight. jjb ive also attacked two firebug logos for the dead bug, tell me what you think. k --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- inline: fbdead_logo_1.jpginline: fb_dead_logo1_transparent.png
Re: A bit confused here.
Faivon wrote: I'm sorry ... I've read through stuffs and still kinda confused about one thing. Do firebug really change the site's CSS and HTML? I mean, if I went to google site and use Firebug to remove the logo or modify the form, does google actually change? I kinda doubt it.. So Firebug just provides virtual changes only? WOW. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: I hate the new design.
johnjbarton wrote: On Jul 13, 12:31 pm, IAmThatStrange iamthatstra...@gmail.com wrote: Ditto here, I don't want it on for all pages either. I work with Typo3 (a CMS) and hate having firebug open with the interface, yet I need it open for the pages I am working with. Its irritating. Then 1.4 should work well for you. jjb lol --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Hidden Activated List Unacceptable
FoamHead wrote: I know there's been a lot of discussion about 1.4's new activation model and I don't want to rehash it, but I would like to request one thing: if FireBug is going to remember which sites I activated FireBug on, then I need an interface to view/manipulate that list. 1.3 at least had the ability to disable for all, but 1.4 has nothing. It is completely unacceptable for FireBug to do anything based on a list that I am forced to remember. Above aside, as a relatively lightweight FireBug user, I don't understand why FireBug should even care what the URL of the site is. It seems infinitely easier to make FireBug turn on/off per tab regardless of which URL each tab goes to. FireBug shouldn't need to remember anything -- all tabs start off and a single click opens the FireBug window, activates the Console and Script sections, and reloads the current page (tho you should be able to configure exactly what happens). Thanks, -Foam +1 thats a great idea for a list. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: New Activation Model
Bob Hassinger wrote: This famous quote comes to mind: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. Rako, you are chasing a hopeless result. Even if you manage to get Firebug to be less helpful, there will be another tool, and another, and another. Firebug is only one of many tools even now. You can not possibly plug up the holes as fast as they are developed. Security through obscurity can only give an allusion of protection that diverts ones efforts that should go into measures that can really ensure protection. Every end user has full and unlimited access to whatever you send to their computer (including everything in referenced files like external Javascript and CSS files), for as long as they want it. If a browser can understand the code then a human can. Fundamentally there is little difference between intentionally obfuscated code and just plain old poorly written code. An interested person goes through the same process to sort it out. In essence once you send it to them you have given up any possible trade secret protection and your only real option is copyright (or maybe patent). And still, enforcement of those protections is only really feasible in major situations with a lot of money involved. By its nature Javascript is just not the tool for you when you need to hide your logic or coding, or provide security for your site/data. You have to do it so that users never have access to it in any form - say in host side processing for example. Consider the balance for this one: On one side we are looking at widely beneficial capabilities many people will find very helpful. On the other side you want those benefits denied to them so you can have the illusion of restricting access to what can not really be protected. I think the choice there is easy - one person's illusion of gain, against the whole user communities's real gain. I suspect that is a pretty easy call. On Jul 9, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Luke Maurer wrote: You must be using a pretty wimpy obfuscator if a mere code formatter will undo it. If your IP is the big issue here, won't you be using something that does more than get rid of whitespace? Like renaming local and private variables to nonsense? That's not something that Firebug *could* undo, with or without DRM-style permission bits. - Luke On Jul 9, 11:56 am, Rako mscam...@rakovszky.eu wrote: I agree with you, that there is no need for Firebug to obfuscate JS code. What I object, is the request to implement features that would counteract the obfuscation created by the owner of the site. What I suggested, is a method, through which owners of web-sites could allow/forbid the use of FB by strangers to debug their code. I think FB should not try to display obfuscated code more legibly. This would tantamount to try to decifer encripted data. I have no objection to stand-alone programs to make obfuscated code more legible, but as a feature of Firebug it would be criminal. Would you like to have programs around that spy-out your passwords, decript your private emails? I would not. Please do not turn Firebug into Spyware. On Jul 8, 6:47 pm, Rob Campbell robmcampb...@gmail.com wrote: Rako, further obfuscation of JS code will never be a feature of Firebug. Most minimized JS is already quite obfuscated and, if anything, we'll produce a mechanism to display it more legibly, either by extension or with a feature. As for the Off vs [X] button, I really feel this was a bit of a wasted effort and a discussion that blew the issue out of proportion. Now we've implemented this change to appease a noisy few. Most users will learn that the [X] button means Close / Off after they've used it. It behaves similarly to how you'd expect a close button to work in any other area of Firefox or the OS. I, for one, will be glad to see the Off label go away as soon as possible. On Jul 7, 3:33 pm, Rako mscam...@rakovszky.eu wrote: I do not rant. I simply explain why is this extension/modification to/of the activation needed. Perhaps my reasoning offends you (are you one of the reverse- engineers?), but it is not going to change my reasoning. On Jul 7, 12:34 pm, alfonsoml aml...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 7, 8:32 am, Rako mscam...@rakovszky.eu wrote: I agree with all you say, but what annoys me, are the requests for new features in FB to enable reverse engineering. Then place your rants in those threads. This is already too heated, please, don't mix unrelated things. ummm i thought FB was suppose to do the opposite of obfuscation, like make code easier and faster to understand and debug. btw thats a great quote, every dev should know that by heart. M$
Re: Network Monitoring on IE
C wrote: Is there a way to monitor traffic in IE6/7 ? Does anyone know any proxy software or IE plug-in that will allow me to analyze an measure the traffic ? The gantt chart Firebug has is very useful - I have to analyze the way IE handles the download of HTTP elements and then optimize that based on the findings. Any good tip will help! Thanks in advance ! C wireshark. its free and nothing works as well. its not entry level though, but has a GUI kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: VERY SIMPLE Feature Request: Auto-focus the console input
soapergem wrote: I use Firebug all the time, and it's fantastic, and in doing so I've thought of one thing that would make web debugging ever so slightly easier. I am a person who tends to use the keyboard, and I generally avoid using the mouse as much as possible. So whenever I need to bring up Firebug on a page, naturally I just hit F12. However, it's a little bit annoying that when I press F12, causing Firebug to pop up in the Console tab, the actual console entry line isn't selected. This means that if I want to type a JavaScript command on a page, I do the following steps: * Press F12 * Click the console input * Type command But I would really love to cut it down to just this: * Press F12 * Type command It's safe to assume that by pressing F12, I want to use Firebug, so I think it's safe to also assume that I want the focus on Firebug. Or at the very least, if you don't agree that it's safe to assume so, you could add a checkbox option under Console to toggle this behavior. Can this small feature be added in future releases? In any case, thanks for the fantastic tool. +1 i use the keyboard like too. its annoying not havingt it focus. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: How to uninstall Firebug
Tom wrote: How do you uninstall Firebug? I can't find the prgram on my PC. It's not in my program files under Firebug or Parakey. Any suggestions? Thanks. Tom its a plugin, you delete it from firefox. you can manually go into your firefox profile directory and delete it. too, but i wouldn't recommend that to start with lol. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: I hate the new design.
whatcould wrote: Chiming in. As a JS developer, I miss the old behavior too. Today I had the unfortunate experience of thinking my javascript was broken for some reason. Turns out firebug had deactivated itself, and when it's inactive doesn't even catch console.log calls -- so my app was working when FB was open, but halting execution (on console.log) when I closed FB (so I could have more screen real estate, mostly). Only now (on further exploration) do i see that FB stays on when you click the bug -- but disables when you click the (x). I'm not sure what the old behavior was exactly, or how different it is from the new behavior, but some kind of upgrade message about the change would have been very helpful. On Jun 30, 1:22 pm, sir_brizz bj.car...@gmail.com wrote: Once again, I have to agree. I have a co-worker who just upgraded to 3.5 and naturally upgraded FireBug. He didn't even know that Firebug wasn't working the way it did before AT ALL. He thought it was just broken and unusable. I'm sure he is not an isolated case of this. The new activation model makes sense, but it is NOT easy or convenient. On Jun 30, 11:13 am, MorningZ morni...@gmail.com wrote: 2) The activation logic must be simple so, it isn't a barrier for new users and/or for users who user Firebug just time to time This just isn't correct... Even a new user, or a time to time user, would *expect* that if: - They told Firebug to Watch Requests, Turn on Console, etc etc (the three checkboxes when then panel is pulled) If Firebug is told to do that, then whether he/she opened a new browser window, opened a new tab, stuff like that, then Firebug should bedoing it's thing.. not require it to be activated and the panel pulled up. that's just very unfriendly to developers (and isn't that your core/target group of people using this awesome tool?) As said, 1.2 and 1.3 behaved like this, why rip that behavior out totally?It's like what Microsoft seems to do all the time they try to dumb down their User Interfaces so much, that they absolutely kill it for people who *really* use it day to day Look, I don't have your stats on usage or really any idea of what you consider average user or power user, but you asked earlier in this topic for some specific dislikes and I and others posted them replying with can't satisfy everyone is just weak. On Jun 30, 12:48 pm, Francis Lewis ftu...@gmail.com wrote: If you could do that, that would be awesome and save me a lot of work :) I have hated the way the activation works in 1.4x, so I created a new firebug plug-in, but I haven't had time to actually code anything into it yet. Hopefully we can get a group of people working on this… that would make it easier for all of us :) I have a discussion forum for web developers onhttp://startrekguide.com. You can contact me there if you're interested (username is Handyman) and we can setup a forum and repository (if needed) for it. Francis On Jun 30, 9:21 am, Trevan Richins trich...@omniture.com wrote: You can make firebug always on (right-click the icon in the bottom bar). I've also been playing around with an extension for my own development that forces firebug to always be on for my development domain. I've got issues with it where it is minimized when it shouldn't be or maximized when it shouldn't be, and I've never tested open in new window but it is working fine for me. The email thread where I've asked questions about the extension is titled Help with extension to enable Firebug at a specific domain. I could post my code and let you try and make it work for you. Trevan using either or is abotu the same IMHO, i do prefer the older to the newer as it was faster to use, the new one is more annoying to look at request sand switching between tabs. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: I hate the new design.
sir_brizz wrote: Personally, I just find the new method inconvenient in almost every aspect. It feels like, intentional or not, that FireBug is rewritten from scratch every time a new version comes out because features are drastically changed between versions as opposed to bugs being fixed and new features added. I wasn't a fan of the activation model in 1.3 but I grew into it over time. The current activation model takes that one step further than the 1.3 model away from the 1.2 model. In 1.2, I appreciated being able to have Firebug always on and disable it on specific sites. I like to have it available all the time in case I want to use it, none of this refreshing the page repeatedly to get what I want. This is my preferred activation model. In 1.3, my typical use-case was simply to whitelist any domains I was going to use it on often as soon as I went to them. This way I never had to wonder if, for example, Firebug was running on ANY of my development sites (all on the same domain). With only slight modifications, this activation model could have easily been made to work like 1.2 for users who were interested. After one moment of annoyance, I could have all of my sites functioning with Firebug with NO ACTION from me. In 1.4, while the functionality makes sense, I have to go through a lot of steps (AND avoid clicking the X) to get Firebug up on a site, and it seems file or folder based or something. On first run, I have to: *) Right click Firebug icon *) Enable all panels *) Click to open Firebug *) Refresh the page *) Check things *) Minimize Firebug (don't click the X or you have to start all over!) *) Come back to the page at some later time and again avoid clicking the X during use, which disables Firebug and messes up the domain setting again. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Previously, You go to your domain, click to open firebug, check all the boxes and the button and you never have to worry about messing that setting up again unless you do it intentionally. In my opinion, all of this could be avoided by having two modes for Firebug, whitelist mode and blacklist mode. In whitelist mode, Firebug is always disabled and you can enable it for specific domains. In blacklist mode it is always enabled and you can disable it for specific domains. There is no worrying about the bug icon, clicking the wrong buttons, or anything and setup can default to whichever makes most sense. I'm positive that eventually I'll have just rolled the new activation model in to my workflow, it's just annoying to have to do so when the old model worked just fine for me. I used many of the 1.4 alphas and saw complaints about the new activation model come in all the time, but they are always passed off as either the activation model having bugs or the user just using it wrong. I don't recall anyone complaining this much about the model in 1.3, because, whether you preferred it or not, it was intuitive and easy. The new model, so far, just isn't (or, especially, isn't as intuitive as the old model). On Jul 1, 12:14 am, johnjbarton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote: On Jun 30, 9:30 pm, MorningZ morni...@gmail.com wrote: ... I'm in Visual Studio, i built my project, and choose the file to view in browser http://i40.tinypic.com/2cpx8uo.jpg Ok right away I see your problem. Does Visual Studio generates as a new file name every time? And it's not a web site so you don't even have a domain correct? So Flock (version 2.5) opens up, Firebug (i'm on 1.4.0b3) comes up disabled. http://i42.tinypic.com/30mokmp.jpg(andyeah, that is the annoying part) Just to help the communications, we would not call that up disabled. Rather we would say closed (because you have no UI) and suspended because the icon is gray. So now i have to click the bug to activate, which also opens the panel, which i am running 3 monitors but not very high resolution so i can't actually read/use what i am working on because the panel is hogging up the viewport http://i43.tinypic.com/27yvpnb.jpg If you had ever done this in the past for that URL, Firebug would already be active. So now I have to make another click to undock, and then drag it to another monitor it just so i can read/use the web page http://i44.tinypic.com/2885b9j.jpg I like undock but we call it detach. If you had been detached before, you would stay detached. Sure, that simple example may sound like well, it's just a few clicks, but as a professional developer, I am having to do that a lot of times over and over and over on a given 12 hour workday.. and i am closing and opening windows all the time (as that first screenshot causes a new page/tab to open) I do not consider this sequence you describe to be trivial. (Sounds a lot like what I have to do to develop
Re: Nice product. Icon sucks.
@ Mr. kirby you are an idiot. stop complain and being rude to people who volunteer there time. you should spend more time debugging your crappy looking website, www.wallaceinfo.com which doesn't work in FF. on a side note im a professional graphic designer / artist and engineer. i love the FB logo, i think its mad cute. @kirby, i betcha didn't know that it also does more damage to your brand by changing it out after it has beem saturated in the market. secondly why does it matter for something that doesn't get sold. You should download the source and rebrand it with some fancy graphics you think are kewl, and sell it. See how that works out for yea. prolly not well, as no one cares what the logo looks like. to me and prolly 99.9 of other engineers its merely a button to push when you wanna debug a website. i actually take a little offense to you calling yoruself a information systems archtect. do you even know what that is or what they do? kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Extremely Disappointed in New Activation Model - Old Method Better
sir_brizz wrote: Sorry, but what does 8,000 beta users have to do with anything (and how is such a number tracked, anyway? I've downloaded Firebug alphas/ betas from at least 5 unique locations and I'm sure many others have done the same)? The people posting here are the people that care about Firebug development, and the ratio represented should, roughly, correlate back to that entire 8,000. If not, then what use is any statistical analysis in the world today? They wouldn't do it if the methods weren't mostly proven. Frankly, if satisfaction rate is anywhere near 50%, I would see changing the activation model as an utter failure and complete waste of time (I'm sorry to say). The current functionality is overcomplicated and inconvenient. Here's how I explained it to a friend (and this is all true based on my testing of 1.4b3): you click the bug, it turns on for the current tab you refresh, and all the panels work for the current page oh, but first you have to right click the bug and say enable all panels if you click the bug then firebug will stay open on that tab if you want to hide the panel, you have to click minimize not the x [confusing] if you mistakenly click the x, you have to then click the bug, refresh the page, then minimize if it's minimized and you go to another page, it disables if you go back to a page it was enabled on, it re-enables but of course if you hit the x on accident, it forgets that setting Okay, now let's compare that to 1.3: Click bug check three boxes click a button So, how can we continue to claim this is not more complex? It absolutely is! On Jul 1, 2:32 pm, johnjbarton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote: Yes, but you are taking 72% of a tiny fraction of all Firebug users. We had about 8,000 beta users, so even if 40 people here did not like it, 40/8000 is only 0.5%, so we have 99.5% satisfied users. Do you buy that? Me neither, so let's give up trying to count people who complain. You're assuming that 100% of the people who didn't like it complained. You bet. Any assumption is as good as any other one. Which is why one can't use it as a proxy for voting. jjb @ sir b i agree at this point. +1 OMG im sick of reading all of this, just change it to a white and black list, if its on its on, keep it on till you shut it off by clicking the button, K.I.S.S. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: I hate the new design.
johnjbarton wrote: We'd be interested in what problems you are encountering. The design work for 1.4 is complete; we use beta just for bugs not design changes. Our goal is to make Firebug work well for as many users as possible. jjb On Jun 29, 3:39 pm, Dan screenm...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Firebug, Please do not keep the design in the latest beta. It is messing up all my habits and is constantly wasting my time. Thanks, at first i didn't like the new design, but it grew on me, only took a few mins to get used to it. I use both, as i used FF3.5 with the latest FB and FF3.1 with the older stable release of FB. using both side by side, the new version actually is alot easier to use, its just a little difference, IMHO a better flowing, UI. I also agree with spending more time on getting it to work well with as few bugs as possible. k --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Ability to change hotkeys
ne_skaju wrote: Hi, please make ability to change hotkeys. For example, ctrl-shift-c for “inspect” is not very comfortable, I like more IE 8 style (ctrl-b; even if it conflicts with other function). +1 this is a common and very useful feature of alot of my audio and multi tracking apps. As i have my own personal set of hot keys i typically use. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: break on particular user input events
Canny wrote: Hi guys, I am fresh to this charming web application debugging tool. But after some study, I still can't find a way to setup breakpoints in JS file so that every time certain event is triggered, the execution will pause there in debugging mode. Is this really possible with Firebug? Thanks, Canny go to the script tab, select the resource you wanna debugg, then click all the way on the left of the line number of the line you wana break. if you click the breakpoints tab on the panel to the right of this you will see an itemized list of break points, you can also click on watch tab to set watches on specifc classes, functions or class members (variables). kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: break on particular user input events
Canny wrote: What I am looking for is actually a little bit different from an ordinary conditional break. What I want to do is to automatically pause at certain event handlers, e.g., a key press event, without explicitly identifying the location of the event handlers function. This is interesting in cases where the whole JS file is obfuscated so that it is hard to find the handler's entry point. Another use case motivating this debugging feature is that sometimes you may want the program to pause whenever the XMLHttpRequest send() is invoked, while it might be tedious to exhaust every appearance of the send() function call. --- Canny On Jun 26, 2:44 pm, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: Canny wrote: Hi guys, I am fresh to this charming web application debugging tool. But after some study, I still can't find a way to setup breakpoints in JS file so that every time certain event is triggered, the execution will pause there in debugging mode. Is this really possible with Firebug? Thanks, Canny go to the script tab, select the resource you wanna debugg, then click all the way on the left of the line number of the line you wana break. if you click the breakpoints tab on the panel to the right of this you will see an itemized list of break points, you can also click on watch tab to set watches on specifc classes, functions or class members (variables). kara if you wanna break at an event, create a new function which listens and/or intercepts these events. the function doesn't have to really do anything, then in your debugger just put a break at where you declare your function. the debugger will pause the app everytime this function gets called, IE when the event is triggered. debuggers do not let your break on conditions like that, thats is not what they are designed for or how they work, atleast in the java and js worlds. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: break on particular user input events
johnjbarton wrote: In Firebug 1.4, the Break On Next button will break in to Javascript on the next event. It is the double bar thing. In Firebug 1.5, we plan to have BreakOn features for all of the panels, so you will be able to break on next javascript (Script) request (Net) response (Net) DOM mutate mozPaint (HTML) Style change (CSS if we can figure it out). good luck with that one ^_^ k Error (Console) jjb On Jun 26, 1:37 pm, Yan Huang yhuang@gmail.com wrote: But I am using firebug on someone else's web service only available online. Strictly speaking, I am not debugging the application, rather trying to reverse engineering part of the application. I guess most sophisticated debugging tools like *gdb* offer this feature (i.e., break on arbitrary function invocation point specified by a string name). I am not sure whether there is a traditional debugger that can break at event-handling functions for an arbitrary event specified by its string name. I think this is indeed a very useful feature for working with JavaScript programs too. If Firebug can't do this for the moment, anyone knows other tools offer the functionality for JavaScript? --- Canny On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: Canny wrote: What I am looking for is actually a little bit different from an ordinary conditional break. What I want to do is to automatically pause at certain event handlers, e.g., a key press event, without explicitly identifying the location of the event handlers function. This is interesting in cases where the whole JS file is obfuscated so that it is hard to find the handler's entry point. Another use case motivating this debugging feature is that sometimes you may want the program to pause whenever the XMLHttpRequest send() is invoked, while it might be tedious to exhaust every appearance of the send() function call. --- Canny On Jun 26, 2:44 pm, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com wrote: Canny wrote: Hi guys, I am fresh to this charming web application debugging tool. But after some study, I still can't find a way to setup breakpoints in JS file so that every time certain event is triggered, the execution will pause there in debugging mode. Is this really possible with Firebug? Thanks, Canny go to the script tab, select the resource you wanna debugg, then click all the way on the left of the line number of the line you wana break. if you click the breakpoints tab on the panel to the right of this you will see an itemized list of break points, you can also click on watch tab to set watches on specifc classes, functions or class members (variables). kara if you wanna break at an event, create a new function which listens and/or intercepts these events. the function doesn't have to really do anything, then in your debugger just put a break at where you declare your function. the debugger will pause the app everytime this function gets called, IE when the event is triggered. debuggers do not let your break on conditions like that, thats is not what they are designed for or how they work, atleast in the java and js worlds. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: break on particular user input events
Yan Huang wrote: But I am using firebug on someone else's web service only available online. Strictly speaking, I am not debugging the application, rather trying to reverse engineering part of the application. I guess most sophisticated debugging tools like /gdb/ offer this feature (i.e., break on arbitrary function invocation point specified by a string name). I am not sure whether there is a traditional debugger that can break at event-handling functions for an arbitrary event specified by its string name. I think this is indeed a very useful feature for working with JavaScript programs too. If Firebug can't do this for the moment, anyone knows other tools offer the functionality for JavaScript? --- Canny On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com mailto:karacu...@gmail.com wrote: Canny wrote: What I am looking for is actually a little bit different from an ordinary conditional break. What I want to do is to automatically pause at certain event handlers, e.g., a key press event, without explicitly identifying the location of the event handlers function. This is interesting in cases where the whole JS file is obfuscated so that it is hard to find the handler's entry point. Another use case motivating this debugging feature is that sometimes you may want the program to pause whenever the XMLHttpRequest send() is invoked, while it might be tedious to exhaust every appearance of the send() function call. --- Canny On Jun 26, 2:44 pm, Kara Rawson karacu...@gmail.com mailto:karacu...@gmail.com wrote: Canny wrote: Hi guys, I am fresh to this charming web application debugging tool. But after some study, I still can't find a way to setup breakpoints in JS file so that every time certain event is triggered, the execution will pause there in debugging mode. Is this really possible with Firebug? Thanks, Canny go to the script tab, select the resource you wanna debugg, then click all the way on the left of the line number of the line you wana break. if you click the breakpoints tab on the panel to the right of this you will see an itemized list of break points, you can also click on watch tab to set watches on specifc classes, functions or class members (variables). kara if you wanna break at an event, create a new function which listens and/or intercepts these events. the function doesn't have to really do anything, then in your debugger just put a break at where you declare your function. the debugger will pause the app everytime this function gets called, IE when the event is triggered. debuggers do not let your break on conditions like that, thats is not what they are designed for or how they work, atleast in the java and js worlds. kara one word, maybe its two but whatever ^_^ greasemonkey https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748 you can try venkman thats a way more robost and if not the most advanced debugger for js out there. its a little to robust for my tastes as i like to keep it simple. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/216 HOWEVER i definatly see a use for an event debugger, where you can set breakpoints on specific user agent events, which is what i think you mean after chatting about this. it would be great if you could say set a watch for event type 301 or dblclick etc. it would also be nice to be able to see the stack trace when the event occurs IE during the pause break. just some ramblings kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Firefox/Firebug can't deal with files longer than 65535 lines long
Hernan Rodriguez Colmeiro wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 16:40, Kara Rawsonkaracu...@gmail.com wrote: i have the same problem when debugging gwt gxt. i have like one line that consists of 100k+ lines of compiled code. a reverse obfuscator would be awesome so i can actually do line breaks and see whats going on. Maybe a little OT, but the GWT compiler has an optional parameter to compile to nice code. Is really really helpful when debugging GWT code in Firebug. Hernán whats the arguments or options to make this happen, ive been poking around for something that would do this thanx in advance kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Firefox/Firebug can't deal with files longer than 65535 lines long
Steven Roussey wrote: http://code.google.com/p/fbug/issues/detail?id=1900 i have the same problem when debugging gwt gxt. i have like one line that consists of 100k+ lines of compiled code. a reverse obfuscator would be awesome so i can actually do line breaks and see whats going on. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Finding file location of element.style inline styles
Dgreen97 wrote: I've worked with firebug for quite a while now and I frequently run into inline styling element.style CSS in the code while I'm working on Joomla CMS. It sometimes takes hours to find the file that contains this inline style code. Is there any way to find which file has this code with firebug or any other program? I've looked forever for a program to do this and I haven't been able to find one. If firebug could identify which files had the inline styling it would be absolutely awesome. so are you trying to find inline styles that are static or dynamically added by JS. if its static, use a text search crimison editor has a really good search for text in files function, if your trying to search for dynamically added stuff, thats a bit more tricky, you can expand all of the content nodes in the HTML tab, pasted it all into a txt file, (of all the files you are looking in), do a find in that new txt file, then try to match some type of static content with where this dynamic stuff is added, once you have some static content to match, then just do a search content in all files, find the general location, then you will find the location where this dynamic inline stuff occurs. overal it sounds like you are tacking this problem from the top down, really you should be trying to solve these problems from the bottom up, meaning searching within the source code that generates the html, and css and not the actual compiled code, it would be like digging though a bunch of obfuscated JSNI looking for a specific value to reverse engineer, becuase i dont have the src's to look at. firebug also dynamic searechsdynamic html content if you use the search filter box in the top right. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CSS Questions
Jordo84 wrote: Hi, My team at work is currently in the process of developing our CSS to be commensurate with the current DITA standards. I have some general questions regarding the use of DITA and any other information regarding these topics would be helpful. 1.What information do you need to gather from your subject matter experts to follow the new template and create a procedure, concept, or pre and post requisites? 2.What is the course of action for writing a procedure that is inclusive within itself and does not have any pre or post requisites? 3.What have you found to be the most effective way of cleaning out/ scrubbing the current documentation to make it easier to convert to topic based templates? a few things A) please post that on the correct forum B) sounds alot like some college class questions. C) WTF does DITA which is xml architecture for tech papers have to do with CSS. you should be using XSLT for styling XML kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Firebug window appears on the right of the browser window
pliant wrote: It was Widerbug. I removed that and now its back to the bottom. Too bad you can't switch between having it at the bottom or at the right. On Jun 18, 9:00 am, Jan Odvarko odva...@gmail.com wrote: This feature is also implemented by Widerbug - Firebug extensionhttp://www.command-tab.com/2008/01/19/widerbug-widescreen-firebug/ Perhaps it's installed? Honza On Jun 18, 5:43 am, johnjbarton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote: You mean Firebug in an external window? Which version? jjb On Jun 17, 6:40 pm, pliant plia...@gmail.com wrote: It just started doing this recently. How do I get it back to the bottom again? put in a request to widerbug. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Feature Request: Break on DOM Object Event
AdamV wrote: Hey guys, I don't know if this is either possible or even reasonable but I'll propose it anyways. Its not always feasible to put a breakpoint in the JavaScript source. This is true, for instance, if you're working with third party code (I'm running through the behaviour of a commercial CMS right now) or if functions may have been overloaded. It would be nice if you could select an Element, and select an event on which to start debugging. So I can select some button and start debugging the click event. When the click event happens, the debugging start. This would allow you to know ALL the functions that are called by the event. Adam + 1 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Feature Request: Break on DOM Object Event
Trevan Richins wrote: The break on next doesn't work that well. I have events for onHover and onClick on an element and with the break on next', I can't use it to debug the onClick events, because the onHover event always fires first. -Original Message- From: firebug@googlegroups.com [mailto:fire...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jan Odvarko Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:36 AM To: Firebug Subject: Re: Feature Request: Break on DOM Object Event I think you are looking for Break on Next feature (you need 1.4). Just click on the pause button available in Firebug toolbar (it should start flashing) and do something on the page (e.g. press a button), the debugger will break at the first executed javascript line. Anyway, I like the approach you have indicated. Just a few days ago we have been discussing how to further extend the current Break on Next with something like : Break on XHR, Break on CSS, etc.. Honza On Jun 18, 6:24 pm, AdamV adam.vandenho...@gmail.com wrote: Hey guys, I don't know if this is either possible or even reasonable but I'll propose it anyways. Its not always feasible to put a breakpoint in the JavaScript source. This is true, for instance, if you're working with third party code (I'm running through the behaviour of a commercial CMS right now) or if functions may have been overloaded. It would be nice if you could select an Element, and select an event on which to start debugging. So I can select some button and start debugging the click event. When the click event happens, the debugging start. This would allow you to know ALL the functions that are called by the event. Adam i agree break on next works like crap. i would like to see something like break on next and even maybe a break on next with sometype of regex match or filtering, ~k --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: script doesn't show up on script panel
Owen Corpening wrote: I have been using firebug every day for 18 months and it just quit working. I am just trying to achieve a working setup again. I have to do 100% of my debugging with logging right now ... I really don't care what version I am using. If no one can help me, fine, I guess I have to create a VM to test with or something blech *From:* Elias mikez...@gmail.com *To:* Firebug firebug@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:37:57 PM *Subject:* Re: script doesn't show up on script panel Thank you for your reply. I checked out the description of 1.4b2 on the releases page, and it seems like it only works on the beta of Firefox 3.5. I use Firefox and Firebug regularly for my job and I am sorry to say I'm not willing to take the time to experiment with a beta product for a beta browser. I spend enough time dealing with enough bugs. If there is a way to make 1.4b2 to work in Firefox 3.0.11, I may consider it. However, I will keep what you said in mind and try the final version 1.4 when it is finished. Elias try http://getfirebug.com/lite.html i use it when i need to debug using logging in non FF browsers and such. another option is to not use the console.log and to use javascript error / warnig / dialog console. IE throw foobar; or throw new Error(bleh) http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/08/22/debugging-javascript-throw-away-your-alerts/ hope that helps some kAra --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Save edited Page/HTML
talaric wrote: I often use firebug as a WYSIWYG html editor/manipulator to remove ad- blocks, left and right navigators on pages before printing. But many times I really wish I could save that edited page just as is, and not with all the junk cluttering the main content area. Is it possible to extend it to include Save as edited feature ? If I copy/paste the html then I lose firefox's translation of image urls etc. to local directories. Although I'm not entirely sure this is within the scope of Firebug, I understand where you're coming from. I tend to use a combination of webdeveloper toolbar and firebug not as much as a WYSIWYG editor (there are better tools for that) but rather for tweaking css rules to get them right - because a) I hand code pretty much everything and b) the results are immediate (no reloading the page to see the changes take effect) I almost always forget to transfer css corrections I make in firebug back to the source css file and then lose them. :) I blame myself for that. -talaric yes i agree thats all its made for tweaks. this saves me hundreds of hours each year. Rather then hand code some shyt, compile, test, repeat 12 times or more, now i just code the stuff up, and tweak the UI with the realtime layout tab. The rulers are a life saver. if you really want the modified code, use another extension like greasemonkey or such which lets you save modified css and html to a page. Also try developing your css inlinewhen testing, and then moigrate to extrenal sheets when you know its 100%. then you can literary just copy and paste into your external sheet. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Save edited Page/HTML
johnjbarton wrote: Kevin Decker has Firediff extension, our first effort to support edit- and-export. As soon as we wrap up 1.4 we will spend more time on extension support. No one has worked on full export of the live objects to my knowledge. jjb On Jun 18, 3:02 pm, talaric richardjhorn...@gmail.com wrote: I often use firebug as a WYSIWYG html editor/manipulator to remove ad- blocks, left and right navigators on pages before printing. But many times I really wish I could save that edited page just as is, and not with all the junk cluttering the main content area. Is it possible to extend it to include Save as edited feature ? If I copy/paste the html then I lose firefox's translation of image urls etc. to local directories. Although I'm not entirely sure this is within the scope of Firebug, I understand where you're coming from. I tend to use a combination of webdeveloper toolbar and firebug not as much as a WYSIWYG editor (there are better tools for that) but rather for tweaking css rules to get them right - because a) I hand code pretty much everything and b) the results are immediate (no reloading the page to see the changes take effect) I almost always forget to transfer css corrections I make in firebug back to the source css file and then lose them. :) I blame myself for that. -talaric thats a great idea, i definatly would love to see a diff in firebug, it would convient for me to be able to diff obfuscated JSNI for reverse engineering purposes, to see wchich and what sections of the compiled JSNI changes, based on how the source code changes. kara --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Firebug group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Feedback Suggestions to the new version
Jan Odvarko wrote: A) allow users to customize netview so that, columns are hidable and resizable. IE i wanna make my title column really wide and the response time narrow. i have very long requests i wanna inspect. I like the idea, could you please report a new issue so, it isn't lost in the noise. http://code.google.com/p/fbug/issues/list DONE! B) provide some type of filter on the net, which lets me delimit what requests are shown based on what matchs in the filter, handy for just display specific requests for debugging. There is already set of buttons on the Net panel's toolbar (All, HTML, CSS, etc.) that are used to filter content of the panel. Is this what you want, or can we extend it somehow? yes i do use those buttons,an example say i wanna only show requests that contain the text somedomain.com./myjsppage.jsp?. Now i only will see requests that match that regex. or say filter for specific url paramerts, like only show request which contain someparam=somevalue. for example i have a form which posts to 4 requests on submit. i wanna be able to filter to just see say only 1 of the 4 matching by regex. i would suggest putthing this input field to the very right on the toolbar which contains the html, css, js tab buttons on the net panel. after we hash out the details ill submit the ticket on google =) C) add an optuion to the console which lets you display net requests, like how the old version display them. The Console panel still has an option Show XMLHttpRequest that should work with Firefox 3.5. Just to note that there was a bug in 3.5b4 that broke this so, please test with recommended 3.5 version here: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2009-06-05-04-mozilla-1.9.1/ gotcha, yes i had that option selected. let me know what and if any information you would like about my useragent for debugging purposes if needed D) have option to allow user to format response text. IE i always return xml and its a real pain having to format it manually for every request i wanna inspect. Sometype of inspector or navigator like the html tab has would be nice, IE color coding of nodes aattributes and values. Maybe make it smart so yu candetect if its xml, json or something else. There is already a JSON explorer (available if a net response is JSON) so, yes having another panel (like XML explorer) fits exactly into the concept. I don't think there is a bug for this. Could you please also report a new issue for this? thats what i had in mind, rigth now the html tab formats it to html, kinda useless lol. DONE!!! E) create net panel option to allow you to always display request regardless if your on the tab or not, sometimes i have to switch between tabs, and state machines i have running are doing frequent requests The tab here means Firefox tab or Firebug's panel? If you right click on the Firebug icon in Firefox status bar and pick On for all web pages does it solve the problem? disregard, this is the bug with not show xmlrequests in console. i dont know how and if you can implement something like this, but a mechanism to watch or inspect comet payloads. in my development i use alot of comet to push events and such to client apps. It would be soo handy to feed firebug a comet url or something, and have it just inspect and tail the payload coming in to the iframe. More users already requested this, could this be related to: http://code.google.com/p/fbug/issues/detail?id=1195 ? If not, more detailed explanation how this should work (from the user perspective) would be useful. Perhaps an idea for a new Firebug extension? humm, i dont think its fully related. What im envisioning is another thing like the console tab, which basically just lists the comet payloads. one payload per line, then maybe something to be able to expand each payload like in the net tab for requests. expanded item could display like RFC3339 format time, the size, amount of chars, etc maybe even detect if its html or xml or JSON, and format the text, like the net tab also does for requests. Im thinking of something separate. IMHO i see the net tab as a way to peer into my AJAX requests, console tab to know whats going on IE event logging for error report stack tracing, and a new COmet tab, which monitor incoming data. I have a project coming up in the next year which will have a multiple comet payloads coming in from multiple servers. That coupled with filtering, would make it a snap to debug different data streams. Thanks for great feedback! Honza no problem, im just glad to add a few more issues onto your growing backlog of 600 bugs ^_^. honestly ive used firebug for years now, and never a complaint. one of the most useful, and well designed applications out there, and yes i call it an app even though its a firefox plugin. one of the best things ff has going
