It seems like Skype dropped the http://mystatus.skype.com/skypename.xml feed. Since the beginning of May it's always "offline".
Does anybody know a simple alternative to create a custom Button?
It seems not possible, once they said:
"We haven't actively supported these buttons for some time, as their accuracy has deteriorated. For example, someone’s status is not always reflected accurately (especially when they are on a mobile device). We are now removing their functionality entirely."
Look at:
https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA605/how-do-i-set-up-the-skype-button-to-show-my-status-on-the-web-in-skype-for-windows-desktop
Related
Community, Firefox has a new function . Called fingerprinter (settings under privacy).
I know what fingerprinting means. What I like to ask you is: what is Firefox doing exactly when this feature is activated, what data is being changed by this setting?
Because when you do a test on panopticlick.eff.org, in both cases, active/inactive fingerprinter setting, you still get a unique html canvas hash assigned to you.
So, what is firefox exactly "preventing" or "changing" by this fingerprinter setting then?
And can you give your short opinion: is it better to activate this new fingerprint setting, or not? If you like to be "less" easier identifiable during web surfing? I have read differing opinions. There are those who say if you block fingerprinting you look more "unique", and those who say, If you allow fingerprint, you "less unique" in the masses...
Thanks all!
Browser finger printers are a subset of trackers that allow sites to gather a certain amount of information about a visitor’s browser and device, even without the use of a cookies.
Firefox new feature can help you block fingerprinting coming from many ad trackers.
Keep in mind blocking fingerprinting may cause some sites to break or make them look strange, or the layout will be different. It can also slow down your online experience.
We are building a small site for a client and while we spoke, the question of html standard popped up and we told him we will do it in HTML5. His question was "what about those who do not support html 5" since he wants to reach the widest possible audience some of whom are in the tech-unsavvy or elderly group?
I've been so deep into html5 for a while that this never crossed my mind, if we use exclusively html5 who exactly is now being left behind and how much of a market share do they represent? I tried googling this, but I can't find any objective material on that topic. I would very much like to avoid falling back on pre-html5 if we are just talking about a few percent of ludites holding out.
Depends entirely on the functionality of HTML 5 you intend to use.
Check out this website: Can I Use
Then based on the functionality you intend to use check what browsers support it, then if you need to use that feature and you can only use say IE 11 and above, but all other browsers support it then you check the browser share for IE 10 and below at: https://netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx
Unfortunately there's no easy answer to the amount of people unable to use your website depending on if you use 'HTML 5' it depends entirely on the feature set, your potential users locations and browser they use.
If you are building a site for a client with an existing website and they use some form of analytics you could use those stats to define the usage levels of browsers and then work from there.
I imagine there must be out there a website that collects information about HTML 5 feature and what browsers version started to support them.
This might be a good way to decide based on your website profile, if you can apply that HTML 5 feature without a fallback for your visitors.
Do you know such a site/resource ?
For example I want to know what browsers support the multiple upload feature for inputs and what browser version was the first.
Update
I'm not pleased with the sites suggested so I'm opening a bounty.
Suggestions so far: Html5Test, Caniuse, modernizr.com, QuirksMode
Update 2
Some people don't understand the question. I need to implement the multiple upload feature. I know from analytics what browser are they using ( I know this is not 100% correct ).
I'm willing to sacrifice some of the visitors by not offering some advance features but I need to understand how big is this procent. I'm NOT trying to DETECT in anyway the browser. It's a similar approach with other sites that dropped IE 6 support.
So please don't talk about bad practice.
Try to look at Html5Test or caniuse.
If it's server side, you can analyze user agent to find out if client's version supports HTML5. Wikipedia is your friend.
If it's client side, there's Modernizr library.
A quick search gave me this interesting result (reproduced in several blogs): http://www.findmebyip.com/litmus/
And you can may also want to take a look at this list of how to detect each feature: http://diveintohtml5.ep.io/everything.html
Here is another website, quite incomplete but verbose and "work in progress" as of March 2011, so it might be worth keeping an eye on: http://html5accessibility.com/
This one is off topic, but since I found it, I add it. CSS compatibility in IE browsers (very extensive): http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc351024(VS.85).aspx
And here you can find info specific to the gecko engine: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/HTML5
And, of course, MDC has compatibility tables for each feature, but separated in different pages, not as a table, e.g.: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/Element/input
http://www.modernizr.com/
HTML5Test.com collects the information but they don't give detailed reports for perusal.
A good reference site for some stuff is http://www.browserscope.org/ but that doesn't go into a lot of detail with HTML5 specific support
Another source of related stuff is http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/reporting/report.htm which is creating a set of HTML testing tools that can be run.
You or someone who wanted to create this information could use these tests and then store the UA String of each browser that hit the site with the results of each test.
Then you could just find the earliest version of each browser type that a feature successfully run on.
I think this information is stored in the databases of the sites mentioned but they just don't display it which sort of sucks. Maybe try emailing them and suggesting they add these reports.
Take a look at caniuse.com, it’s exactly what you are searching for.
QuirksMode is also a great resource, and there is an entry for multiple files input.
My vote is for:
http://www.findmebyip.com/litmus
Which i found via this blog:
http://www.deepbluesky.com/blog/-/browser-support-for-css3-and-html5_72/
You should try this website. I hope this is what you were looking for.
I was looking at the www.google.com in Firebug and noticed something odd: The Google logo is centered using a center tag.
So I went and checked the page with the W3C validator and it found 48 errors. Now, I know there are times when you can't make a page valid, especially when we're talking about something like www.google.com and you want it to be as small as possible, but can someone please explain why they use the center tag?
I attended a panel at SXSW a few years ago called "F*ck Standards" which was all about breaking from standards when it makes sense. There was a Google engineer on the panel who talked about the Google home page failing validation, using deprecated tags, etc. He said it was all about performance. He specifically mentioned layout rendering with tables beating divs and CSS in this case. As long as the page worked for their users, they favored performance over standards.
This is a very simple page with high traffic so it makes sense. I imagine if you're building a complex app that this approach might not scale well.
From the horse's mouth.
Because it's just the easiest, most concise way to get the job done. <center> is deprecated, for sure, but as long as it's still supported, you're likely to still see them using it.
Shorter than margin:0 auto. Quicker to parse. It is valid HTML4. No external dependencies, so less HTTP requests.
Usability is NOT validity.
Google Search's biggest achievement has been to build a site which is easy to use, and can be widely used. Now, if Google achieved this with a page which does not validate, well, there's a lesson there to learn.
I think a better question to ask would be "why would Google make it validate if it works fine?" It makes no difference to the user.
There has been speculation and discussion about whether this is intentional; the basic test carried out in the first link does result in a smaller page, and even gzipped, through millions of page views it theoretically stacks up. I doubt that's the reason though: it was created, tested on many browsers at the time, it worked, and continues to work.
Google's breaks validation in many ways on their home page. The very likely real reason - they are all about speed and bandwidth costs. Look at the size of the home page HTML particularly after Gzip is applied at the packet level. They are clearly trying to avoid packet fragmentation (which will mean more bandwidth) and willing to do whatever it takes to get it (identifier shortening, quote removal, deprecated tags, white space removal, etc.
If you look at this just as a validity question, fine but they break the rules on purpose if you don't assume this of course you may jump to a negative conclusion. BTW you can further optimize their pages both in positive and negative manners but why once inside the typical packet size it is somewhat pointless.
They also use other deprecated presentational tags like font and u. My guess is it makes the page quicker to load then using an external stylesheet and allows it to work on more platforms.
It's deprecated, sure, but I think simplicity is the answer to your question.
I'm curious what change requests, from testers, clients, or managers, programmers have encountered that seemed really simple but were in fact really complicated.
Could you add an undo button? (To a custom WYSIWYG editor).
Back in my college days I worked on a side project for a client. It was a medium sized Win32 desktop application to do some 2D diagramming and every step of the way and every demo was great. The client liked it. Finally, I was ready to deliver it and be done when they asked if I could just make it run on the web first.
Classic "missing-requirement-kills-project" scenario.
How about adding a GUI to this command line app?
One thing I've hit was being asked to change a word in the title of a window. However, the title of the window was in fact localized in a library and was shared with several applications. Changing it's title in either title would mean either changing where it grabbed the data (ugly and inconsistent with the rest of the code), changing the dll (will impact other software), or adding a hard-coded fix (hacky).
"I'd like to use Oracle instead of SQLServer for the database."
"can you make it bigger?" in reference to the sizing of radio buttons.. back before CSS
"just make it more webbish"