Re: [Trisquel-users] text-based browsers versus Icecat/Abrowser
Librewolf browser looks promising to me. Thanks Caleb and Masonhock.
Re: [Trisquel-users] text-based browsers versus Icecat/Abrowser
It's a privacy-focused Firefox derivative. https://librewolf-community.gitlab.io/
Re: [Trisquel-users] text-based browsers versus Icecat/Abrowser
On 12.8.2020 15:44, ma...@masonhock.com wrote: > In LibreWolf with JS blocked via NoScript, What’s LibreWolf? -- Caleb Herbert KE0VVT (816) 892-9669 https://bluehome.net/csh
Re: [Trisquel-users] text-based browsers versus Icecat/Abrowser
It has something to do with CSS. In LibreWolf with JS blocked via NoScript, youtube.com looks like it did in ungoogled-chromium. But if I hit Alt to display the titlebar menu, go to View -> Page Style and change "Basic Page Style" to "No Style", it disables CSS for that page and I can see the same text and links I could see in Lynx. Perhaps some sites have content that is hidden with CSS, and then revealed by JS. If JS is disabled but CSS is not, then the content is inaccessbile. But if both JS and CSS are disabled (or missing, as is the case with Lynx) then the content is visible.
Re: [Trisquel-users] text-based browsers versus Icecat/Abrowser
> You should complain to the administrators of the sites distributing nonfree JavaScript... I think what the OP is saying is that text-based browsers do a better job of handling some JS-heavy sites than graphical browsers do with JS blocked. I have noticed this too. For example, see the attached screenshots. The first is of what youtube.com looks like in ungoogled-chromium with JS blocked via uBlock Origin, and the second is what the same page looks like in Lynx. In ungoogled-chromium, there is no visible text and no clickable links (the same thing happens with Firefox-based browsers). In Lynx, there is some readable text and working links. Complaining to the admins of sites with non-free JS does not address this particular issue. The issue is that some information is not accessible in Abrowser and other graphical browsers without JS, even though that information *is* accessible in text-only browsers like Lynx and EWW without JS.
Re: [Trisquel-users] text-based browsers versus Icecat/Abrowser
Sorry, forgot to upload the screenshots.
Re: [Trisquel-users] text-based browsers versus Icecat/Abrowser
I have definitely seen the number of websites Firefox can't load correctly increase as all other web browsers shift to Webkit or similar rendering engines. I think a lot of sites are just not bothering to test for Firefox anymore or something. I use Lynx as a secondary browser and generally it does a good job of just getting me to the text I want to read, but not all javascript forms and such work. As time has gone on I have increasingly been preferring sites and services that minimize the use of anything beyond html/css or use the simplest features beyond them. When I am thinking of purveying a new site or service, I actually first visit it in Lynx to see how well it functions. If it does well, then I use my main browser. Website bloat is a real problem, designers have gotten so lazy it is maddening. I choose to withhold my site hits for sites actually designed well with respect at their core.
Re: [Trisquel-users] text-based browsers versus Icecat/Abrowser
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 01:00:18 +0200 (CEST) aa...@posteo.net wrote: > I am sure we all have found some website that is not viewable through > Mozilla based browsers. Generally almost all website should be viewable with Abrowser(firefox based), if it doesn't it is the website's fault not browser's. Personally I try /lynx/ browser first. And if I see that the website not viewable properly, than I consider the _the website_ (not the browser) to be broken.
[Trisquel-users] text-based browsers versus Icecat/Abrowser
I am sure we all have found some website that is not viewable through Mozilla based browsers. I was wondering if anyone also sees a difference when browsing with text-based browser. Having javascript restricted in your browser with noscript and/or librejs a lot of sites look blank and missing something. If you try the emacs browser eww you may see those image and text spoilers you didn't see on reddit with abrowser. Is this a bug we should report?
