So I've made some little modifications to a particular website (background color, fonts, etc...) and I want these changes to be permanently applied for the next visits.
The issue is when I refresh the website, it goes back to its initial form.
Wether it's for Google or Safari web browser, is there a way to accomplish such task?
The thing is that each time you enter a website your browser downloads the whole DOM code of this site. The changes you make with Chrome's or Safari's dev tools applies only for the already-downloaded DOM that is displayed on your browser, but next time you will enter the same website, a new DOM will be downloaded and displayed - without your changes.
So, actually, I'm sorry but what you want is not possible.
What you can do is:
Save the modified HTML code to your PC (I don't know if it helps you).
Use an extension that allows you to run a JS code automatically on page load (there are bunch of this kind of extensions), and with that JS code you can manipulate the DOM the way you wish to. Yea I know, that solution involves maybe long code writing but this is the way you can change the new DOM every time - automatically.
Firebug lets you edit individual web pages locally, with live updating so you can see the effects of your changes right away. Unfortunately, these changes are lost after the page is refreshed.
Is there any way to make these changes "sticky" in some way, such that repeated visits to the site would reload your own customized html/css that you edited? I'm thinking perhaps some sort of Firebug feature that I'm missing, or another plugin of some sort...
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about websites I have server side access to. I would simply like to be able to reposition the content of some pages I visit frequently so it fits better on my monitor setup, which I can do in Firebug but I have to do it every time the page loads (I would like to be able to avoid having to do that).
You should make use of the Greasemonkey and / or Stylish addons for Firefox.
These where originally developed to do exactly what you intend to achieve.
Also check out this article on how to get started with Stylish.
I have created a page tab (which I have done before without any trouble) but am now not seeing it on either of our two fan pages. I keep seeing a reference to "add to page" but can't seem to find this option. When I go to the fan page and edit it, click on apps, the new page tab I created is not there.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
They seem to be changing things a lot lately. You should check out the Facebook Page Tab Documentation if you haven't already; Assuming you haven't answered your question in the past 30 days.
When are appropriate situations to use the target="_blank" attribute on your hyperlinks?
Edit:
To clarify, I know the syntax will open a new browser window. What I am asking is when is it appropriate to do so?
Whenever you want to annoy users.
More seriously, since this opens a new window/tab, it should be used sparingly, in my opinion.
Most modern browsers have some option (ie: middle-click on hyperlink) to do this for you, so I personally prefer allowing the user to handle this themselves.
However, if you are working on something where there is a non-technical reason for this, such as a sales-oriented site, it's often desirable to open a product brochure in a new window, or something along those lines. However, just be aware that overdoing this leads to my pseudo-joke response above....
When ever you want to leave the current page as-is.
I've got a feeling your question should be 'When is it appropriate to open a new tab or browser window?'
If so, the answer might be :
The current form may be in edit mode, and you want to be able to open
another page without either
disregarding or saving the current
one.
You have a data stream like Twitter which you want to leave active while
you go off and look at X.
There is a specific business requirement to do so.
Your users have weak navigation abilities and won't find their way back to the main page.
It is most appropriate when you're linking to outside resources that people may want to go to for additional information, reference, etc.
It lets them leave your site without losing their place on your page or have to use the back button.
It also makes sure they have to look at it one more time if they want to close it ;-)
(that last one is a joke and I don't advocate such despicable practices of course...)
Generally I avoid it like the plague. However, perhaps a good example of why you'd want to use that would be if you're building a cart module or something, and you have the "click for bigger picture" link. I think it's ok in that sense.
Keep in mind that whenever you do it, you're assuming you know the user's workflow better than they do (they can always open the link in a new window without you forcing it). In the case of the "bigger picture" link, you'd most likely be correct in assuming that's what they want, but in most cases I wouldn't jump to conclusions.
When you want the link to open in a new window, I would assume. I think the time to use this is when people might click on a link that'd destroy what they were doing on the page currently, such as a "help" link on a form.
Though some would argue that you should never use target="_blank".
One thing to be aware of here is accessibility. Built in features to help blind users (text to speech for example) may act weird (or just in a way that's confusing to the user) when you open a new window or tab.
Also, you're breaking the most used feature of every browser...the back button.
Only if it, with outmost certainty, prevents the user from having to repeat something.
I think that you should probably not ask a user experience question in a developer forum, because you will get developer answers.
That said, and as a developer, I open new Windows when I expect (or want) the user to come back and continue working on the site where the link originated.
The only time I would consider it is if you have multimedia on the page.
Best example I can think of - the StackOverflow podcast... I can't tell you how many times I've rushed to click a link in the blog post only to take me off the podcast page!
Also, on YouTube when I click "View Comments", it takes me away from the video page.
Whatever you do, don't use JavaScript to open a new window. That's definitely the worst. Nothing worse than a middle-click only to open a new tab with javascript::garbage in the address bar.
The target="_blank" is deprecated in XHTML 1.0 strict, and since I only write in strict I use JS if I really want to open a new page (or tab) and I only do that for external links (like a wiki or so).
More info:
http://www.ajaxblender.com/open-links-new-window-w3c-valid-target-blank.html
NOTE: Although it is deprecated in XHTML 1.0 strict, target="_blank" been brought back in HTML 5.
Stydying your audience will help you decide on this. Casual websurfers will appreciate target=_blank while tech-savvy people are more likely to get annoyed.
As for XHTML 1.0 strict, it is never appropriate. The target-attribute is deprecated in XHTML 1.0 strict.
Never. If I want to open your link in a new window I will do so.
When you open the link in a new window.
There exists practice to open in new window links that refer another/external domain (wiki for example).
I use it for product brochures and the like as I think it is useful for the customer to stay on the product page. I always indicate [new window] next to the link to keep the customer informed. Often the product brochure is a PDF, so I also note that the link will open a PDF.
Use it as you need it, but keep your users informed so as not to annoy/confuse them.
I prefer to avoid it, because most users can figure out on their own how to open a link in a new window, even if unsophisticated. My preference is to use an explicitly named destination, e.g. target="somename" if you have a good reason for opening a new window on your own.
I only use it when the client insists.
Otherwise I prefer to let the user decide.
I might be in the minority here but I like using target="_blank" for my links ONLY when they're meant to be reference links. In most cases, you shouldn't be using it for regular links around a website.
I really don't like it when I click on a link in a blog post or an article and it loads on the same page and I need to navigate back to the original source page.
When you are creating an email for mobile users and are linking to external content. That way, when they click on the link they will open the page in their browser.
When you want to open any particular link in new tab on current window then you can use target="_blank" in html.
<div class="restrunt-menu-list">
<ul>
<li>
<span>
<a target="_blank" href="www.example.com">View Menu</a></span>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
But It might affect your system performance because all browsers takes a lot of memory when it open a new tab or new window.
So less opened tab means less memory uses, less memory uses means better performance.
You can also see that which tab using how mach memory in chrome:
Press shift+Esc , Then you can see Task Manager- Chrome with list currently using memory by each tabs ( in chorme ).
For all external links...
Why on sites like Stack Overflow, Techcrunch, Smashing Magazine, etc. are the page titles (i.e. the text at the top of the page) clickable URLs that redirect to the same page that the user is on?
Some examples:
I believe that this does not effect SEO as search engines ignore internal links.
Is it for usability purposes?
It allows you to right-click on it and choose Copy link location (or equivalent) so that you can easily paste it in an email for example. This requires less time than copying it from the location bar, and some people run their browser without a visible location bar to save previous screen space.
More than anything, it provides a link to the default state of the page.
For example, for this very stack overflow page it is a user can get here through any of the following non-default links:
Why are Page Titles on some websites (including Stack Overflow) Clickable URLs?
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/904381#foobar
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/904381?sort=date
While the default link is actually:
Why are Page Titles on some websites (including Stack Overflow) Clickable URLs?
If users are unable to get to the default state, they end up bookmarking or emailing the non-default link which propagates to new users and the problem just multiplies.
Clicking on the title link of the post will restore the default state and strip off any query parameters (?sort=date), named anchors (#foobar) and fix the story slug (/why-are-page-titles/...).
I use it to refresh the page (yes, I could press F5 too).
Yes Jakob Nielsen has stated that linking to yourself is a web design mistake (nr 10). And I agree.
More reading info here. (nr 10)
The URL redirects to the beginning of the page, in case you arrived on the page via a specific answer (all answers are also clickable URLs). This way, you get the URL of the question, not of an answer.
Not sure if this is why they did it, but I find it useful to siphon off tabs:
If I look at something briefly and think "I'd like to read this thoroughly in a minute but continue with what I was doing before", I can do this:
I can right click the link, click "open in a new tab" and then click "back" and continue nicely.
It's called a Permalink... The name implies what it is, a permanent link.
It's the same reason that each answer on SO has a link you can copy.
I think it inherits the behavior from CMS where each question is a node, which has 0<= answered question. Now think you go for a search on apache questions.
The result are displayed one after another.
In terms of CMS this is called a teaser. You get a full page with lots of questions where the question's title link to the full article(question + answers)
Its not a must, but you'll find it on most sites which uses a CMS.
As long as it does not harm anyone why would people be against it?
I prefer to have those links available as hitting refresh would reload all elements of the page instead of just following the direct link (to the same page) that uses cached elements.
Makes sense to me, I find it useful! I have a lot of tabs open so I just right click the link and go back.
To me this makes perfect sense, from a SEO view this is also good! It forces it to read the page because it's linked.
UX-wise clickable titles which don't bring the user anywhere may seem unusable though that leads us into the realm of Affordance Theory and whether or not the affordance is perceptible to users.
For example, clickable page titles may provide:
A simple method for bookmarking a page to the desktop from a browser window.
A context menu with additional choices allowing users to share a blog post or article.
A method for updating the location bar so it's pointing at the canonical URL of the page.
For the sites you mentioned, however, it seems more likely the page titles were turned into hyperlinks using absolute URLs so analytics tooling could pick up inbound link clicks – those sending the referer info – resulting in DCMA takedown notices when people copied work and didn't update the URLs.
You'd be surprised what people do when they're being incentivized to produce work contractually.