scrollbar colors
Bamm Gabriana
This has probably been asked before but as I am new to this newsgroup I
hope you wouldn't mind if I ask this.
In IE 6.0 it is possible to change scrollbar colors using CSS. I just want
to
know if there are plans to implement a similar feature in Mozilla.
Bamm
Sören Kuklau
Bamm Gabriana
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
> chu...@web.de
Hi again,
Would it be possible then, to add a feature with the same effect
but different syntax from IE, and then ask W3C to adopt Mozilla's
implementation as standard? :)
I have an astronomy page and the black scrollbar really looks
good on it. Have a nice day.
Bamm
Sören Kuklau
>>No, unless W3C adds that, which is highly unlikely.
>>
>>--
>>Regards,
>>Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
>>chu...@web.de
>>
>
> Hi again,
>
> Would it be possible then, to add a feature with the same effect
> but different syntax from IE, and then ask W3C to adopt Mozilla's
> implementation as standard? :)
Well, we could add "-moz-scrollbar-style-..." or so properties, where it
is clearly marked that these properties are proprietary to the vendor
"moz" (Mozilla).
The problem is though that CSS is not supposed to influence the user
interface at all, and I believe scrollbars are part of it. I see your
problem though.
Btw (at others): Form elements can partially be styled with CSS. These
are kind of UI elements too. Thus, wouldn't -moz-scrollbar- be useful too?
> I have an astronomy page and the black scrollbar really looks
> good on it. Have a nice day.
I see your problem.
Bamm Gabriana
> is clearly marked that these properties are proprietary to the vendor
> "moz" (Mozilla).
That would be a good idea. :)
> The problem is though that CSS is not supposed to influence the user
> interface at all, and I believe scrollbars are part of it. I see your
> problem though.
I believe the scrollbar is part of the page not of the browser. For example,
textareas and iframes can have scrollbars. The main page itself only has
scrollbars if it is long enough.
> Btw (at others): Form elements can partially be styled with CSS. These
> are kind of UI elements too. Thus, wouldn't -moz-scrollbar- be useful too?
That is a very good comparison. If I can influence the look of a textarea,
then I guess I should also be able to influence the look of its scrollbar.
> I see your problem.
Thanks a lot! Supporting this can also be a strategic move to be able to
lure IE converts. Don't you think? :)
Sören Kuklau
>>Well, we could add "-moz-scrollbar-style-..." or so properties, where it
>>is clearly marked that these properties are proprietary to the vendor
>>"moz" (Mozilla).
> That would be a good idea. :)
Not mine. We're doing that already with a lot of CSS properties which
are currently in the CSS 3 working drafts, such as "-moz-opacity" which
equals CSs3's "opacity".
>>The problem is though that CSS is not supposed to influence the user
>>interface at all, and I believe scrollbars are part of it. I see your
>>problem though.
> I believe the scrollbar is part of the page not of the browser. For example,
> textareas and iframes can have scrollbars. The main page itself only has
> scrollbars if it is long enough.
See below ;-)
>>Btw (at others): Form elements can partially be styled with CSS. These
>>are kind of UI elements too. Thus, wouldn't -moz-scrollbar- be useful too?
> That is a very good comparison. If I can influence the look of a textarea,
> then I guess I should also be able to influence the look of its scrollbar.
Exactly. Problem is though: Where should the border of
under-site-influence and _not_ under-site-influence be set? If we enable
this to scrollbars, people might use the same argumentation to enable
this for menubars, and once that is the case, literally every part of a
browser window could be influenced due to the same argumentation. I
wonder what W3C thinks about this...
>>I see your problem.
> Thanks a lot! Supporting this can also be a strategic move to be able to
> lure IE converts. Don't you think? :)
Might be.
Bamm Gabriana
> under-site-influence and _not_ under-site-influence be set? If we enable
> this to scrollbars, people might use the same argumentation to enable
> this for menubars, and once that is the case, literally every part of a
> browser window could be influenced due to the same argumentation. I
> wonder what W3C thinks about this...
As I said, I consider the scrollbars to be part of the page, not of the
browser. The menu bars should not be influenceable because the menus
never appear inside the webpage - it is part of the browser, not the page.
But even in such a scenario, that would put Mozilla ahead of MS and
would shift the tide in our favor, don't you think? (People love being
able to change things they aren't suppose to change. :) )
The this "bug" would soon be a "feature". :)
Mark Slater
Bamm Gabriana
> under-site-influence and _not_ under-site-influence be set? If we enable
> this to scrollbars, people might use the same argumentation to enable
> this for menubars, and once that is the case, literally every part of a
> browser window could be influenced due to the same argumentation. I
> wonder what W3C thinks about this...
Come to think of it, it might not be such a bad idea to allow webmasters
to influence the browser's colors. Javascript already allows them to make
the menus and toolbars hidden. Why not CSS?
A pref "Allow web page to influence browser colors" could come in handy.
This could be a check box below the two radio buttons in Appearance / Colors
under "When a web page provides its own colors and background"
This would be a step ahead of Internet Exploder.
As I said, supporting this can also be a strategic move to be able to
lure IE converts. Don't you think? :)
I know this is not CSS3, but we can always propose it.
Sebastian Spaeth (news)
> A pref "Allow web page to influence browser colors" could come in handy.
> This could be a check box below the two radio buttons in Appearance / Colors
> under "When a web page provides its own colors and background"
> This would be a step ahead of Internet Exploder.
A step ahead of taking control from the user. brrr, thank you, I still
want to decide how my browser looks.
Bamm Gabriana
I thought I said pref. Being a pref then you still decide. You're welcome.
Arron
wrote:
>But even in such a scenario, that would put Mozilla ahead of MS and
>would shift the tide in our favor, don't you think? (People love being
>able to change things they aren't suppose to change. :) )
>
>The this "bug" would soon be a "feature". :)
hmm.. Scrollbars can change via Themes, right? Why not allow web sites to
specify a theme/skin?
I'm thinking this already can be done using InstallTrigger.installChrome on
your webpage, but that's not quite the way we want it done.
We want a chrome to be for the specific web page only, not for all Mozilla
windows from that point on until the user selects another skin. It would
be more usefull if there was a <LINK> for it, like:
<LINK type="mozilla/skin" ref="moz-skin" href="/CBSchrome_Fall2002.jar">
There was talk once of having a MIME type for skin, but I can't find any
bugs on Mozilla about it. I guess having type= would be optional anyway.
This would allow total customization of a browser window (as much as the
skinning library allows us to, that is). Far better than putting in a
million CSS properties that aren't W3Cs. Naturally, a preference to
disable use of website skins would be needed too.
Joe Cuervo
>
> Why not allow web sites to specify a theme/skin?
>
Have you ever surfed the web?
Sebastian Spaeth (news)
*grin* I am exited to see my browser turn into a huge Windows logo
when I go to MS.com,
or have it penisformed on whitehouse.com or even better visit a site
changing my browser into an imitation of a Windows desktop laid over my
real desktop.
Man that will be fun!
spaetz
Arron
<Seba...@SSpaeth.de> wrote:
>Joe Cuervo wrote:
>> Have you ever surfed the web?
> *grin* I am exited to see my browser turn into a huge Windows logo
>when I go to MS.com,
>or have it penisformed on whitehouse.com or even better visit a site
>changing my browser into an imitation of a Windows desktop laid over my
>real desktop.
>Man that will be fun!
>
>spaetz
This already happens within the window. MS already puts it's logo on their
page, porn is already displayed on whitehouse.com, and yes, if you go to
full screen mode, you can even find sites that look just like your Windows
desktop. No, the ones you listed aren't fun, but how often do you go back
to whitehouse.com anyway? o.o If we follow the logic of "people will abuse
it", perhaps we should just strip the web pages of all color, jscript, and
images, because people certainly abuse them way to much too.
I don't see much of difference between allowing websites to control the
display of what's inside the window and allowing them to control the
display of the whole window. Respected sites will make respected skins.
And yes, I do surf the web. Oddly, 90% of the websites I visit have "okay"
to "superb" color schemes and layout. The remaining 10% I never visit
again.
When a page loaded, if a box came up saying something like:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| [Thumbnail of ] porn.com has a 150k browser window skin available |
| [what the skin ] for use while viewing it's pages. |
| [would look like] |
| Would you like to use it? |
| |
| (x) remember this choice for porn.com |
| ( ) remember this choice for all sites |
| |
| [Yes] [No] |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmm, I think i'd choose no and make it remember it for that site..
Sebastian Spaeth (news)
>
> This already happens within the window. MS already puts it's logo on their
> page, porn is already displayed on whitehouse.com, and yes, if you go to
> full screen mode, you can even find sites that look just like your Windows
> If we follow the logic of "people will abuse
> it", perhaps we should just strip the web pages of all color, jscript, and
> images, because people certainly abuse them way to much too.
I do see a difference, inside the chrome there is the *content* window,
which I expect to show me all the content. It can and should be clearly
distinguished from my *browser window*, exactly for the reason to
differentiate the content from the rest.
Example: Imagine a webpage setting the skin of your browser as it has
been before, but adds to the theme a part which looks exactly like that
part of the webpage is supposed to be. So you think you'd click on the
webpage, but indeed they tricked you into clicking your webbrowsers
buttons. I can well imagine a "Format C:" or "rm / -rf" button for each
link which I thought was part of the webpage.
> And yes, I do surf the web. Oddly, 90% of the websites I visit have "okay"
> to "superb" color schemes and layout. The remaining 10% I never visit
> again.
>
> When a page loaded, if a box came up saying something like:
So, I did my disable pop-up window thing jsut for having this dialog pop
up at every /nifty/ website? Thank you very much, brrr.
Arron
<Seba...@SSpaeth.de> wrote:
>I do see a difference, inside the chrome there is the *content* window,
>which I expect to show me all the content. It can and should be clearly
>distinguished from my *browser window*, exactly for the reason to
>differentiate the content from the rest.
Well, I never did say it was a good idea or a fully thought out one. :P
What you just said is an excellent reason why I wouldn't want web pages to
ever set a skin. I really know next to nothing about how the skinning
works. I guess I hoped that there was some control already build into the
skinning module to prevent such things from happening.
I know any degree of skin changes probably wouldn't sit well with you, but
for others, allowing partial skinability by a website might be nice.. the
partial being things that could screw an unsuspecting user over (like
changing the scroll bars)
>> When a page loaded, if a box came up saying something like:
>
>So, I did my disable pop-up window thing jsut for having this dialog pop
>up at every /nifty/ website? Thank you very much, brrr.
I'm sure there could be other ways of setting this "feature" on/off other
than a dialog popup. Perhaps like how the javascript is turned on/off per
site, or how the image blocker works. I was just giving one example that
personally I'd be happy with (considering that probably only 1% of sights
would make skins.. until Mozilla became popular that is)
Christian Biesinger
> I really know next to nothing about how the skinning
> works. I guess I hoped that there was some control already build into the
> skinning module to prevent such things from happening.
Well. When you install a skin, you install an xpi (afaik). An xpi can
contain anything, even executable code (which obviously can do anything).
Or the file could contain XUL/JS. Javascript running with Chrome
Privileges can also do whatever it wants.
So, the skin installation process can do whatever it wants, if you click
"OK" in the dialog asking if you want to install the skin.
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Christian Biesinger
> Come to think of it, it might not be such a bad idea to allow webmasters
> to influence the browser's colors. Javascript already allows them to make
> the menus and toolbars hidden. Why not CSS?
JS can only hide menus and toolbars in new windows, not existing ones.
> A pref "Allow web page to influence browser colors" could come in handy.
> This could be a check box below the two radio buttons in Appearance / Colors
> under "When a web page provides its own colors and background"
Yet another pref?
And I don't think many users would enjoy having the look of their
browser changing as soon as they visit another page.
> This would be a step ahead of Internet Exploder.
Eh... opinions differ on this point.
> As I said, supporting this can also be a strategic move to be able to
> lure IE converts. Don't you think? :)
Why would that convert users from IE?