Shallow Thoughts : : web

Akkana's Musings on Open Source Computing and Technology, Science, and Nature.

Wed, 04 Jan 2017

Firefox "Reader Mode" and NoScript

A couple of days ago I blogged about using Firefox's "Delete Node" to make web pages more readable. In a subsequent Twitter discussion someone pointed out that if the goal is to make a web page's content clearer, Firefox's relatively new "Reader Mode" might be a better way.

I knew about Reader Mode but hadn't used it. It only shows up on some pages. as a little "open book" icon to the right of the URLbar just left of the Refresh/Stop button. It did show up on the Pogue Yahoo article; but when I clicked it, I just got a big blank page with an icon of a circle with a horizontal dash; no text.

It turns out that to see Reader Mode content in noscript, you must explicitly enable javascript from about:reader.

There are some reasons it's not automatically whitelisted: see discussions in bug 1158071 and bug 1166455 -- so enable it at your own risk. But it's nice to be able to use Reader Mode, and I'm glad the Twitter discussion spurred me to figure out why it wasn't working.

Tags: ,
[ 11:37 Jan 04, 2017    More tech/web | permalink to this entry | comments ]

Mon, 02 Jan 2017

Firefox's "Delete Node" eliminates pesky content-hiding banners

It's trendy among web designers today -- the kind who care more about showing ads than about the people reading their pages -- to use fixed banner elements that hide part of the page. In other words, you have a header, some content, and maybe a footer; and when you scroll the content to get to the next page, the header and footer stay in place, meaning that you can only read the few lines sandwiched in between them. But at least you can see the name of the site no matter how far you scroll down in the article! Wouldn't want to forget the site name!

Worse, many of these sites don't scroll properly. If you Page Down, the content moves a full page up, which means that the top of the new page is now hidden under that fixed banner and you have to scroll back up a few lines to continue reading where you left off. David Pogue wrote about that problem recently and it got a lot of play when Slashdot picked it up: These 18 big websites fail the space-bar scrolling test.

It's a little too bad he concentrated on the spacebar. Certainly it's good to point out that hitting the spacebar scrolls down -- I was flabbergasted to read the Slashdot discussion and discover that lots of people didn't already know that, since it's been my most common way of paging since browsers were invented. (Shift-space does a Page Up.) But the Slashdot discussion then veered off into a chorus of "I've never used the spacebar to scroll so why should anyone else care?", when the issue has nothing to do with the spacebar: the issue is that Page Down doesn't work right, whichever key you use to trigger that page down.

But never mind that. Fixed headers that don't scroll are bad even if the content scrolls the right amount, because it wastes precious vertical screen space on useless cruft you don't need. And I'm here to tell you that you can get rid of those annoying fixed headers, at least in Firefox.

[Article with intrusive Yahoo headers]

Let's take Pogue's article itself, since Yahoo is a perfect example of annoying content that covers the page and doesn't go away. First there's that enormous header -- the bottom row of menus ("Tech Home" and so forth) disappear once you scroll, but the rest stay there forever. Worse, there's that annoying popup on the bottom right ("Privacy | Terms" etc.) which blocks content, and although Yahoo! scrolls the right amount to account for the header, it doesn't account for that privacy bar, which continues to block most of the last line of every page.

The first step is to call up the DOM Inspector. Right-click on the thing you want to get rid of and choose Inspect Element:

[Right-click menu with Inspect Element]

That brings up the DOM Inspector window, which looks like this (click on the image for a full-sized view):

[DOM Inspector]

The upper left area shows the hierarchical structure of the web page.

Don't Panic! You don't have to know HTML or understand any of this for this technique to work.

Hover your mouse over the items in the hierarchy. Notice that as you hover, different parts of the web page are highlighted in translucent blue.

Generally, whatever element you started on will be a small part of the header you're trying to eliminate. Move up one line, to the element's parent; you may see that a bigger part of the header is highlighted. Move up again, and keep moving up, one line at a time, until the whole header is highlighted, as in the screenshot. There's also a dark grey window telling you something about the HTML, if you're interested; if you're not, don't worry about it.

Eventually you'll move up too far, and some other part of the page, or the whole page, will be highlighted. You need to find the element that makes the whole header blue, but nothing else.

Once you've found that element, right-click on it to get a context menu, and look for Delete Node (near the bottom of the menu). Clicking on that will delete the header from the page.

Repeat for any other part of the page you want to remove, like that annoying bar at the bottom right. And you're left with a nice, readable page, which will scroll properly and let you read every line, and will show you more text per page so you don't have to scroll as often.

[Article with intrusive Yahoo headers]

It's a useful trick. You can also use Inspect/Delete Node for many of those popups that cover the screen telling you "subscribe to our content!" It's especially handy if you like to browse with NoScript, so you can't dismiss those popups by clicking on an X. So happy reading!

Addendum on Spacebars

By the way, in case you weren't aware that the spacebar did a page down, here's another tip that might come in useful: the spacebar also advances to the next slide in just about every presentation program, from PowerPoint to Libre Office to most PDF viewers. I'm amazed at how often I've seen presenters squinting with a flashlight at the keyboard trying to find the right-arrow or down-arrow or page-down or whatever key they're looking for. These are all ways of advancing to the next slide, but they're all much harder to find than that great big spacebar at the bottom of the keyboard.

Tags: ,
[ 16:23 Jan 02, 2017    More tech/web | permalink to this entry | comments ]

Thu, 09 Jul 2015

Taming annoyances in the new Google Maps

For a year or so, I've been appending "output=classic" to any Google Maps URL. But Google disabled Classic mode last month. (There have been a few other ways to get classic Google maps back, but Google is gradually disabling them one by one.)

I have basically three problems with the new maps:

  1. If you search for something, the screen is taken up by a huge box showing you what you searched for; if you click the "x" to dismiss the huge box so you can see the map underneath, the box disappears but so does the pin showing your search target.
  2. A big swath at the bottom of the screen is taken up by a filmstrip of photos from the location, and it's an extra click to dismiss that.
  3. Moving or zooming the map is very, very slow: it relies on OpenGL support in the browser, which doesn't work well on Linux in general, or on a lot of graphics cards on any platform.

Now that I don't have the "classic" option any more, I've had to find ways around the problems -- either that, or switch to Bing maps. Here's how to make the maps usable in Firefox.

First, for the slowness: the cure is to disable webgl in Firefox. Go to about:config and search for webgl. Then doubleclick on the line for webgl.disabled to make it true.

For the other two, you can add userContent lines to tell Firefox to hide those boxes.

Locate your Firefox profile. Inside it, edit chrome/userContent.css (create that file if it doesn't already exist), and add the following two lines:

div#cards { display: none !important; }
div#viewcard { display: none !important; }

Voilà! The boxes that used to hide the map are now invisible. Of course, that also means you can't use anything inside them; but I never found them useful for anything anyway.

Tags: , , ,
[ 10:54 Jul 09, 2015    More tech/web | permalink to this entry | comments ]

Wed, 06 May 2015

Tips for passing Google's "Mobile Friendly" tests

I saw on Slashdot that Google is going to start down-rating sites that don't meet its criteria of "mobile-friendly": Are you ready for Google's 'Mobilegeddon' on Tuesday?. And from the the Slashdot discussion, it was pretty clear that Google's definition included some arbitrary hoops to jump through.

So I headed over to Google's Mobile-friendly test to check out some of my pages.

Now, most of my website seemed to me like it ought to be pretty mobile friendly. It's size agnostic: I don't specify any arbitrary page widths in pixels, so most of my pages can resize down as far as necessary (I was under the impression that was what "responsive design" meant for websites, though I've been doing it for many years and it seems now that "responsive design" includes a whole lot of phone-specific tweaks and elaborate CSS for moving things around based on size.) I also don't set font sizes that might make the page less accessible to someone with vision problems -- or to someone on a small screen with high pixel density. So I was pretty confident.

[Google's mobile-friendly test page] I shouldn't have been. Basically all of my pages failed. And in chasing down some of the problems I've learned a bit about Google's mobile rules, as well as about some weird quirks in how current mobile browsers render websites.

Basically, all of my pages failed with the same three errors:

What? I wasn't specifying text size at all -- if the text is too small to read with the default font, surely that's a bug in the mobile browser, not a bug in my website. Same with links too close together, when I'm using the browser's default line spacing.

But it turned out that the first two points were meaningless. They were just a side effect of that third error: the mobile viewport.

The mandatory meta viewport tag

It turns out that any page that doesn't add a new meta tag, called "viewport", will automatically fail Google's mobile friendly test and be downranked accordingly. What's that all about?

Apparently it's originally Apple's fault. iPhones, by default, pretend their screen is 980 pixels wide instead of the actual 320 or 640, and render content accordingly, and so they shrink everything down by a factor of 3 (980/320). They do this assuming that most website designers will set a hard limit of 980 pixels (which I've always considered to be bad design) ... and further assuming that their users care more about seeing the beautiful layout of a website than about reading the website's text.

And Google apparently felt, at some point during the Android development process, that they should copy Apple in this silly behavior. I'm not sure when Android started doing this; my Android 2.3 Samsung doesn't do it, so it must have happened later than that.

Anyway, after implementing this, Apple then introduced a meta tag you can add to an HTML file to tell iPhone browsers not to do this scaling, and to display the text at normal text size. There are various forms for this tag, but the most common is:

<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
(A lot of examples I found on the web at first suggested this: <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1, maximum-scale=1"> but don't do that -- it prevents people from zooming in to see more detail, and hurts the accessibility of the page, since people who need to zoom in won't be able to. Here's more on that: Stop using the viewport meta tag (until you know how to use it.)

Just to be clear, Google is telling us that in order not to have our pages downgraded, we have to add a new tag to every page on the web to tell mobile browsers not to do something silly that they shouldn't have been doing in the first place, and which Google implemented to copy a crazy thing Apple was doing.

How width and initial-scale relate

Documentation on how width and initial-scale relate to each other, and which takes precedence, are scant. Apple's documentation on the meta viewport tag says that setting initial-scale=1 automatically sets width=device-width. That implies that the two are basically equivalent: that they're only different if you want to do something else, like set a page width in pixels (use width=) or set the width to some ratio of the device width other than 1 (use initial-scale=.

That means that using initial-scale=1 should imply width=device-width -- yet nearly everyone on the web seems to use both. So I'm doing that, too. Apparently there was once a point to it: some older iPhones had a bug involving switching orientation to landscape mode, and specifying both initial-scale=1 and width=device-width helped, but supposedly that's long since been fixed.

initial-scale=2, by the way, sets the viewport to half what it would have been otherwise; so if the width would have been 320, it sets it to 160, so you'll see half as much. Why you'd want to set initial-scale to anything besides 1 in a web page, I don't know.

If the width specified by initial-scale conflicts with that specified by width, supposedly iOS browsers will take the larger of the two, while Android won't accept a width directive less than 320, according to Quirks mode: testing Meta viewport.

It would be lovely to be able to test this stuff; but my only Android device is running Android 2.3, which doesn't do all this silly zooming out. It does what a sensible small-screen device should do: it shows text at normal, readable size by default, and lets you zoom in or out if you need to.

(Only marginally related, but interesting if you're doing elaborate stylesheets that take device resolution into account, is A List Apart's discussion, A Pixel Identity Crisis.)

Control width of images

[Image with max-width 100%] Once I added meta viewport tags, most of my pages passed the test. But I was seeing something else on some of my photo pages, as well as blog pages where I have inline images:

Image pages are all about showing an image. Many of my images are wider than 320 pixels ... and thus get flagged as too wide for the screen. Note the scrollbars, and how you can only see a fraction of the image.

There's a simple way to fix this, and unlike the meta viewport thing, it actually makes sense. The solution is to force images to be no wider than the screen with this little piece of CSS:

<style type="text/css">
  img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; }

[Image with max-width 100%] I've been using similar CSS in my RSS reader for several months, and I know how much better it made the web, on news sites that insist on using 1600 pixel wide images inline in stories. So I'm happy to add it to my photo pages. If someone on a mobile browser wants to view every hair in a squirrel's tail, they can still zoom in to the page, or long-press on the image to view it at full resolution. Or rotate to landscape mode.

The CSS rule works for those wide page banners too. Or you can use overflow: hidden if the right side of your banner isn't all that important.

Anyway, that takes care of the "page too wide" problem. As for the "Links too close together" even after I added the meta viewport tag, that was just plain bad HTML and CSS, showing that I don't do enough testing on different window sizes. I fixed it so the buttons lay out better and don't draw on top of each other on super narrow screens, which I should have done long ago. Likewise for some layout problems I found on my blog.

So despite my annoyance with the whole viewport thing, Google's mandate did make me re-examine some pages that really needed fixing, and should have improved my website quite a bit for anyone looking at it on a small screen. I'm glad of that.

It'll be a while before I have all my pages converted, especially that business of adding the meta tag to all of them. But readers, if you see usability problems with my site, whether on mobile devices or otherwise, please tell me about them!

Tags: ,
[ 15:48 May 06, 2015    More tech/web | permalink to this entry | comments ]

Tue, 21 Apr 2015

Finding orphaned files on websites

I recently took over a website that's been neglected for quite a while. As well as some bad links, I noticed a lot of old files, files that didn't seem to be referenced by any of the site's pages. Orphaned files.

So I went searching for a link checker that also finds orphans. I figured that would be easy. It's something every web site maintainer needs, right? I've gotten by without one for my own website, but I know there are some bad links and orphans there and I've often wanted a way to find them.

An intensive search turned up only one possibility: linklint, which has a -orphan flag. Great! But, well, not really: after a few hours of fiddling with options, I couldn't find any way to make it actually find orphans. Either you run it on a http:// URL, and it says it's searching for orphans but didn't find any (because it ignors any local directory you specify); or you can run it just on a local directory, in which case it finds a gazillion orphans that aren't actually orphans, because they're referenced by files generated with PHP or other web technology. Plus it flags all the bad links in all those supposed orphans, which get in the way of finding the real bad links you need to worry about.

I tried asking on a couple of technical mailing lists and IRC channels. I found a few people who had managed to use linklint, but only by spidering an entire website to local files (thus getting rid of any server side dependencies like PHP, CGI or SSI) and then running linklint on the local directory. I'm sure I could do that one time, for one website. But if it's that much hassle, there's not much chance I'll keep using to to keep websites maintained.

What I needed was a program that could look at a website and local directory at the same time, and compare them, flagging any file that isn't referenced by anything on the website. That sounded like it would be such a simple thing to write.

So, of course, I had to try it. This is a tool that needs to exist -- and if for some bizarre reason it doesn't exist already, I was going to remedy that.

Naturally, I found out that it wasn't quite as easy to write as it sounded. Reconciling a URL like "" or "../asdf.html" with the corresponding path on disk turned out to have a lot of twists and turns.

But in the end I prevailed. I ended up with a script called weborphans (on github). Give it both a local directory for the files making up your website, and the URL of that website, for instance:

$ weborphans /var/www/ http://localhost/

It's still a little raw, certainly not perfect. But it's good enough that I was able to find the 10 bad links and 606 orphaned files on this website I inherited.

Tags: , ,
[ 14:55 Apr 21, 2015    More tech/web | permalink to this entry | comments ]

Fri, 27 Mar 2015

Hide Google's begging (or any other web content) via a Firefox userContent trick

Lately, Google is wasting space at the top of every search with a begging plea to be my default search engine.

[Google begging: Switch your default search engine to Google] Google already is my default search engine -- that's how I got to that page. But if you don't have persistent Google cookies set, you have to see this begging every time you do a search. (Why they think pestering users is the way to get people to switch to them is beyond me.)

Fortunately, in Firefox you can hide the begging with a userContent trick. Find the chrome directory inside your Firefox profile, and edit userContent.css in that directory. (Create a new file with that name if you don't already have one.) Then add this:

#taw { display: none !important; }

Restart Firefox, do a Google search and the begs should be gone.

In case you have any similar pages where there's pointless content getting in the way and you want to hide it: what I did was to right-click inside the begging box and choose Inspect element. That brings up Firefox's DOM inspector. Mouse over various lines in the inspector and watch what gets highlighted in the browser window. Find the element that highlights everything you want to remove -- in this case, it's a div with id="taw". Then you can write CSS to address that: hide it, change its style or whatever you're trying to do.

You can even use Inspect element to remove elements immediately. That won't help you prevent them from showing up later, but it can be wonderful if you need to use a page that has an annoying blinking ad on it, or a mis-designed page that has images covering the content you're trying to read.

Tags: , ,
[ 08:17 Mar 27, 2015    More tech/web | permalink to this entry | comments ]

Sat, 14 Mar 2015

Making a customized Firefox search plug-in

It's getting so that I dread Firefox's roughly weekly "There's a new version -- do you want to upgrade?" With every new upgrade, another new crucial feature I use every day disappears and I have to spend hours looking for a workaround.

Last week, upgrading to Firefox 36.0.1, it was keyword search: the feature where, if I type something in the location bar that isn't a URL, Firefox would instead search using the search URL specified in the "keyword.URL" preference.

In my case, I use Google but I try to turn off the autocomplete feature, which I find it distracting and unhelpful when typing new search terms. (I say "try to" because complete=0 only works sporadically.) I also add the prefix allintext: to tell Google that I only want to see pages that contain my search term. (Why that isn't the default is anybody's guess.) So I set keyword.URL to: (%3A is URL code for the colon character).

But after "up"grading to 36.0.1, search terms I typed in the location bar took me to Yahoo search. I guess Yahoo is paying Mozilla more than Google is now.

Now, Firefox has a Search tab under Edit->Preferences -- but that just gives you a list of standard search engines' default searches. It would let me use Google, but not with my preferred options.

If you follow the long discussions in bugzilla, there are a lot of people patting each other on the back about how much easier the preferences window is, with no discussion of how to specify custom searches except vague references to "search plugins". So how do these search plugins work, and how do you make one?

Fortunately a friend had a plugin installed, acquired from who knows where. It turns out that what you need is an XML file inside a directory called searchplugins in your profile directory. (If you're not sure where your profile lives, see Profiles - Where Firefox stores your bookmarks, passwords and other user data, or do a systemwide search for "prefs.js" or "search.json" or "cookies.sqlite" and it should lead you to your profile.)

Once you have one plugin installed, it's easy to edit it and modify it to do anything you want. The XML file looks roughly like this:

<SearchPlugin xmlns="" xmlns:os="">
<os:Description>The search engine I prefer to use</os:Description>
<os:Image width="16" height="16"> GOES HERE</os:Image>
<os:Url type="text/html" method="GET" template="">
  <os:Param name="complete" value="0"/>
  <os:Param name="q" value="allintext: {searchTerms}"/>
  <!--os:Param name="hl" value="en"/-->

There are four things you'll want to modify. First, and most important, os:Url and os:Param control the base URL of the search engine and the list of parameters it takes. {searchTerms} in one of those Param arguments will be replaced by whatever terms you're searching for. So <os:Param name="q" value="allintext: {searchTerms}"/> gives me that allintext: parameter I wanted.

(The other parameter I'm specifying, <os:Param name="complete" value="0"/>, used to make Google stop the irritating autocomplete every time you try to modify your search terms. Unfortunately, this has somehow stopped working at exactly the same time that I upgraded Firefox. I don't see how Firefox could be causing it, but the timing is suspicious. I haven't been able to figure out another way of getting rid of the autocomplete.)

Next, you'll want to give your plugin a ShortName and Description so you'll be able to recognize it and choose it in the preferences window.

Finally, you may want to modify the icon: I'll tell you how to do that in a moment.

Using your new search plugin

[Firefox search prefs]

You've made all your modifications and saved the file to something inside the searchplugins folder in your Firefox profile. How do you make it your default?

I restarted firefox to make sure it saw the new plugin, though that may not have been necessary. Then Edit->Preferences and click on the Search icon at the top. The menu near the top under Default search engine is what you want: your new plugin should show up there.

Modifying the icon

Finally, what about that icon?

In the plugin XML file I was copying, the icon line looked like:

<os:Image width="16"
... many more lines like this then ... ==</os:Image>
So how do I take that and make an image I can customize in GIMP?

I tried copying everything after "base64," and pasting it into a file, then opening it in GIMP. No luck. I tried base64 decoding it (you do this with base64 -d filename >outfilename) and reading it in with GIMP. Still no luck: "Unknown file type".

The method I found is roundabout, but works:

  1. Copy everything inside the tag:  ... ==
  2. Paste that into Firefox's location bar and hit return. You'll see the icon from the search plugin you're modifying.
  3. Right-click on the image and choose Save image as...
  4. Save it to a file with the extension .ico -- GIMP won't open it without that extension.
  5. Open it in GIMP -- a 16x16 image -- and edit to your heart's content.
  6. File->Export as...
  7. Use the type "Microsoft Windows icon (*.ico)"
  8. Base64 encode the file you just saved, like this: base64 yourfile.ico >newfile
  9. Copy the contents of newfile and paste that into your os:Image line, replacing everything after data:image/x-icon;base64, and before </os:Image>

Whew! Lots of steps, but none of them are difficult. (Though if you're not on Linux and don't have the base64 command, you'll have to find some other way of encoding and decoding base64.)

But if you don't want to go through all the steps, you can download mine, with its lame yellow smiley icon, as a starting point: Google-clean plug-in.

Happy searching! See you when Firefox 36.0.2 comes out and they break some other important feature.

Tags: ,
[ 12:35 Mar 14, 2015    More tech/web | permalink to this entry | comments ]

Mon, 09 Feb 2015

Making flashblock work again; and why HTML5 video doesn't work in Firefox

Back in December, I wrote about Problems with Firefox 35's new deprecation of flash, and a partial solution for Debian. That worked to install a newer version of the flash plug-in on my Debian Linux machine; but it didn't fix the problem that the flashblock program no longer works properly on Firefox 35, so that clicking on the flashblock button does nothing at all.

A friend suggested that I try Firefox's built-in flash blocking. Go to Tools->Add-ons and click on Plug-ins if that isn't the default tab. Under Shockwave flash, choose Ask to Activate.

Unfortunately, the result of that is a link to click, which pops up a dialog that requires clicking a button to dismiss it -- a pointless and annoying extra step. And there's no way to enable flash for just the current page; once you've enabled it for a domain (like youtube), any flash from that domain will auto-play for the remainder of the Firefox session. Not what I wanted.

So I looked into whether there was a way to re-enable flashblock. It turns out I'm not the only one to have noticed the problem with it: the FlashBlock reviews page is full of recent entries from people saying it no longer works. Alas, flashblock seems to be orphaned; there's no comment about any of this on the main flashblock page, and the links on that page for discussions or bug reports go to a nonexistent mailing list.

But fortunately there's a comment partway down the reviews page from user "c627627" giving a fix.

Edit your chrome/userContent.css in your Firefox profile. If you're not sure where your profile lives, Mozilla has a poorly written page on it here, Profiles - Where Firefox stores your bookmarks, passwords and other user data, or do a systemwide search for "prefs.js" or "search.json" or "cookies.sqlite" and it will probably lead you to your profile.

Inside yourprofile/chrome/userContent.css (create it if it doesn't already exist), add these lines:

@namespace url(;
@-moz-document domain(""){
#theater-background { display:none !important;}}

Now restart Firefox, and flashblock should work again, at least on YouTube. Hurray!

Wait, flash? What about HTML5 on YouTube?

Yes, I read that too. All the tech press sites were reporting week before last that YouTube was now streaming HTML5 by default.

Alas, not with Firefox. It works with most other browsers, but Firefox's HTML5 video support is too broken. And I guess it's a measure of Firefox's increasing irrelevance that almost none of the reportage two weeks ago even bothered to try it on Firefox before reporting that it worked everywhere.

It turns out that using HTML5 video on YouTube depends on something called Media Source Extensions (MSE). You can check your MSE support by going to YouTube's HTML5 info page. In Firefox 35, it's off by default.

You can enable MSE in Firefox by flipping the media.mediasource preference, but that's not enough; YouTube also wants "MSE & H2.64". Apparently if you care enough, you can set a new preference to enable MSE & H2.64 support on YouTube even though it's not supported by Firefox and is considered too buggy to enable.

If you search the web, you'll find lots of people talking about how HTML5 with MSE is enabled by default for Firefox 32 on youtube. But here we are at Firefox 35 and it requires jumping through hoops. What gives?

Well, it looks like they enabled it briefly, discovered it was too buggy and turned it back off again. I found bug 1129039: Disable MSE for Firefox 36, which seems an odd title considering that it's off in Firefox 35, but there you go.

Here is the dependency tree for the MSE tracking bug, 778617. Its dependency graph is even scarier. After taking a look at that, I switched my media.mediasource preference back off again. With a dependency tree like that, and nothing anywhere summarizing the current state of affairs ... I think I can live with flash. Especially now that I know how to get flashblock working.

Tags: ,
[ 17:08 Feb 09, 2015    More tech/web | permalink to this entry | comments ]