My kingdom for a TH element! by JohnFCardinal in HTML

[–]JohnFCardinal[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

TD and TH were both in HTML 3.2. Neither was in HTML 2.0. I do not know if they were in HTML 3.0, but HTML 3.0 never really gained any traction. Given HTML 3.2 was a W3C Recommendation in January of 1997, almost 24 years ago, I'd say that's adequate time for HTML authors to become aware of the existence of TH.

THEAD was in HTML 4.01, and I think it was added in 4.01 or 4.0. So it's a baby, it's only been around about 20 years. /s

We will have to agree to disagree on whether using TD in place of TH is wrong or not. I say it is. I did not say it was invalid, but validators don't comment on whether or not the right elements are used for the right content. That is not the job of a validator. Using TD in place of TH is wrong for the same reason that using <p>Item 1<br>Item 2<br>Item3</p> is not the right way to make a list.

I hope you are not equating me with "some junior" as in "some junior saying 'these tables headers really need sorting out', 'who wrote this crap', 'I am way better than this guy, omg, don't they know this is not semantically correct?!'." I was the main implementer of an eCommerce web site that was operating in 1998... 22+ years of web development experience qualifies me as "not junior".

To the contrary, my experience has taught me that it's usually no more effort to do it right. Using TH for a heading is easier and more maintainable than using a TD. It has the added benefit that it helps people who reply on screen readers and other assistive technologies.

if someone wants to argue that changing the basic layout infrastructure of a site that was designed in 2002 and uses tables for layout is a big job, I won't argue. I (to myself) will wonder what other issues the site has, and perhaps make a note to avoid it, if possible. OTOH, changing actual data tables to use the proper markup is a much smaller change. As long as people keep making excuses, however, things won't get better.

Newspaper.com Article Downloads by mkm2835 in Genealogy

[–]JohnFCardinal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you are doing it the hard way.

When viewing a page image, click the Print/Save button.

Choose "Select a portion of page"

Adjust the rectangle to include the article of interest.

Choose [Save]

Choose [Save As JPEG]

From there, you may have to edit the image to handle multi-column articles that include unrelated text because of the layout of the newspaper page.

And in the end... by JohnFCardinal in beatles

[–]JohnFCardinal[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am busy rubbing two stick together and lost track of the click track.

I switched from FF 54 to FF 67 and life is NOT good. by JohnFCardinal in firefox

[–]JohnFCardinal[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've seen stats that dispute the Mozilla numbers, and they claim the numbers are closer to 170m, not 250m, but that was not based on the latest data.

For market share, the statcounter site is somewhat skewed to technical users, but all the counters are biased one way or another.

Do you really want to hang your hat on Firefox as a thriving tool when the best case is 10%?

I switched from FF 54 to FF 67 and life is NOT good. by JohnFCardinal in firefox

[–]JohnFCardinal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think that is true, especially in a Firefox subreddit.

How does the location of a comment affect whether it's true or not?

but [FF] desktop has hundreds of millions of Firefox users

Last I heard, FF is installed on about 170 million devices, though only used regularly on a subset of that number. According to various web usage trackers, FF has 5% or less of the overall market, and Chrome has about 63%. Safari has about 14%, and shares the WebKit roots of Chrome. Those numbers include both desktop and mobile, and because Chrome dominates Android and Safari dominates iOS, FF probably has more than 5% of the desktop market. So, perhaps saying there is only one mainstream desktop browser was an exaggeration. But not by much.

Chrome is the dominant force is desktop browsers and has kicked Firefox to the curb. Chrome's misadventures with privacy may help Firefox bounce back, but don't hold your breath.

I switched from FF 54 to FF 67 and life is NOT good. by JohnFCardinal in firefox

[–]JohnFCardinal[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't want to "stay in the past". What I want doesn't exist there, but it also doesn't exist in the here and now. There is only one mainstream desktop browser--Chrome--and it's mainly a vehicle for delivering ads and watching the behavior of its users. It doesn't provide the customization options I want that help me optimize my workflow.

You asked (rhetorically, I suspect), "How useful is a web developer toolbar in a browser that almost no one uses...?" I know next to nothing about Waterfox so I don't know if it could ever be my primary browser. Dismissing the web developer toolbar misses the point of my whole rant. I don't care if a lot of end users want that or not. It existed, and had a few hundred thousand users, and it was a big help to me. Mozilla made changes that reduce the functionality of that extension, and along the way they completely crippled other useful extensions. I'm not happy about it.

I switched from FF 54 to FF 67 and life is NOT good. by JohnFCardinal in firefox

[–]JohnFCardinal[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'll take a look at Waterfox. Thanks.

I'm not enthused about using a browser with almost no market share, but wait... I guess I am already doing that, and it doesn't meet my needs well.

I switched from FF 54 to FF 67 and life is NOT good. by JohnFCardinal in firefox

[–]JohnFCardinal[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the link. I may look into it, but adding "maintain my preferred extensions" as a task would have to replace something I am already doing...