Recommended Posts

I'm not sure if this will help or not, but this is the code I use to make "about:blank" transparent

#browser,
#content > tabbox > tabpanels {
  background-color: transparent !important;
}

#main-window[stylish-url="about:blank"] #content browser { 
   opacity: 0 !important;
}

Hi foxxyn8

I couldnt get this to work , i have a white background instead....does this works on windows 7 only cos i am using vista64 =p

Hi foxxyn8

I couldnt get this to work , i have a white background instead....does this works on windows 7 only cos i am using vista64 =p

that's the old code. use this instead (requires stylish):

#appcontent,
#content > tabbox > tabpanels {
  background-color: transparent !important;
}

#main-window[stylish-url="about:blank"]:not([onclose^="PrintUtils"]) #content browser { 
   opacity: 0 !important;
}

Does using stylish and having userchrome.css have any differences (startup UI responsiveness, blah blah)? I'm already satisfied with my userchrome so I'm thinking about removing stylish.

Foxxyn8 had pointed out that userChrome.css can't handle anonymous content, if I understood correctly.

The other advantages of using Stylish may be useful to beginners (moi) like previews (which have a "proof-reading" ability) and not having to restart the browser to see the effect of changes.

Foxxyn8 had pointed out that userChrome.css can't handle anonymous content, if I understood correctly.

The other advantages of using Stylish may be useful to beginners (moi) like previews (which have a "proof-reading" ability) and not having to restart the browser to see the effect of changes.

To expand on this, the difference is that userContent/Chrome are user stylesheets whereas stylish uses user agent(UA) stylesheets. The difference being, in particular, UA can apply styles to native anonymous elements and to CSS anonymous boxes.

Also stylish handles the functions of both userChrome and userContent.

As far as performance goes, I've never noticed any difference. Stylish just makes it easier all around.

Back to beg for more help. :laugh: . What do I add to grey out the favicons on the bookmark toolbar, or everywhere else for that matter? I saw some code that did it earlier in the thread, but I haven't been able to find it again.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/921416-share-your-custom-firefoxminefield-4-stylish-scripts/page__view__findpost__p__593741318

I don't like "text-shadow" (or "etched" effect or anything that makes letters less clear-cut) which I see in a lot of drop-down menus and dialog boxes/panels. Is there a general way to fix that?

In userStyle.css, this works great:

* { text-shadow: none !important; }

I don't like "text-shadow" (or "etched" effect or anything that makes letters less clear-cut) which I see in a lot of drop-down menus and dialog boxes/panels. Is there a general way to fix that?

In userStyle.css, this works great:

* { text-shadow: none !important; }

I don't think it gets any more general than that. You're telling every selector not to use a text-shadow.

I don't think it gets any more general than that. You're telling every selector not to use a text-shadow.

Foxxyn8, but how do I get it to work for the UI (chrome?) of the browser (as opposed to the page content)?

I already have this as a specific example:

#FindToolbar *{ -moz-appearance: none !important; background: #333 !important; color:black !important; font-weight: bold !important; text-shadow: none !important;}

Without it, certain text (Next, Previous) in the Find Toolbar would appear "different" (blurry to me) when there is no search text entered.

So what I want to know is whether there's a universal code that can be used in my style that affects various aspects of the UI (chrome?).

(Just to be clear, I have separate styles in Stylish to reflect chrome versus content.)

I don't think it gets any more general than that. You're telling every selector not to use a text-shadow.

Interesting (and a bit alarming at first). I put the same line in my "chrome" Stylish code. And now I don't see the text-shadow effect :) . The alarming bit is that I don't see the text at all in some cases unless I hover over where it should be. This is okay sometimes but could cause panic at other times.

Interesting (and a bit alarming at first). I put the same line in my "chrome" Stylish code. And now I don't see the text-shadow effect :) . The alarming bit is that I don't see the text at all in some cases unless I hover over where it should be. This is okay sometimes but could cause panic at other times.

That's probably because the color property of the selector is the same as the background-color property. For instance if the text color is black, the background-color is black, a white text shadow makes the text visible. If you remove that text shadow the text becomes unreadable.

That's probably because the color property of the selector is the same as the background-color property. For instance if the text color is black, the background-color is black, a white text shadow makes the text visible. If you remove that text shadow the text becomes unreadable.

That is fair enough. But just out of interest, how is "inactive" text selectively shadowed? Like the example I gave for the Find Toolbar. Or another example when one views a drop-down menu such as "Edit". If no content has been copied by Ctrl+C, the Paste options are shadowed. I'm asking because I'm not sure of how to get the info with the Domain Inspector.

that's the old code. use this instead (requires stylish):

#appcontent,
#content > tabbox > tabpanels {
  background-color: transparent !important;
}

#main-window[stylish-url="about:blank"]:not([onclose^="PrintUtils"]) #content browser { 
   opacity: 0 !important;
}

Awesome!! Thnx for the pointers!

That is fair enough. But just out of interest, how is "inactive" text selectively shadowed? Like the example I gave for the Find Toolbar. Or another example when one views a drop-down menu such as "Edit". If no content has been copied by Ctrl+C, the Paste options are shadowed. I'm asking because I'm not sure of how to get the info with the Domain Inspector.

They're using the [disabled = "true"] attribute. In the right panel of DOM Inspector choose Object - DOM Node. That will show you all the attributes of the chosen selector.

post-350326-0-18854500-1302271474.png

They're using the [disabled = "true"] attribute. In the right panel of DOM Inspector choose Object - DOM Node. That will show you all the attributes of the chosen selector.

...

Thanks for the pointer :)

So now I have:

* {text-shadow: none !important}
* [disabled="true"] {color:#555!important; font-weight: bold!important}

Looks like it's going to take me a lot more time before I can learn to use DOM Inspector for less obvious things :(

Anyone can help me out with these 2 problems ?

I have a weird line and i need to get rid of it

How to change the text color of on the "NEXT" button in the FIND BAR?

Re. the second one, this works for me:

#FindToolbar .findbar-find-next {color: green!important;}

Anyone can help me out with these 2 problems ?

I have a weird line and i need to get rid of it

How to change the text color of on the "NEXT" button in the FIND BAR?

#FindToolbar .findbar-find-next:not([disabled]) {
        color: red !important;
}

#navigator-toolbox::after {
	height: 0px !important; 
}

Thanks for the pointer :)

So now I have:

* {text-shadow: none !important}
* [disabled="true"] {color:#555!important; font-weight: bold!important}

Looks like it's going to take me a lot more time before I can learn to use DOM Inspector for less obvious things :(

* [disabled="true"] 

works, but you should use

*[disabled = "true"]

Re. the second one, this works for me:

#FindToolbar .findbar-find-next {color: green!important;}

#FindToolbar .findbar-find-next:not([disabled]) {
        color: red !important;
}

#navigator-toolbox::after {
	height: 0px !important; 
}

thank you both for the help ^^!

i also managed to figured out the text color for findbar "NEXT", "PREVIOUS" and "HIGHLIGHT" button !! :laugh:

#FindToolbar toolbarbutton:not([disabled]) {
    color: #fff !important;
}

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I really hope the author's health is ok. Squirreling away a official backup of this software. Looks like the internet archive already cached a copy as well - https://web.archive.org/web/20...ldbit-soft.fi/software.html
    • AMD is supported out of the box in linux because of their open source driver. Nvidia does not. All my systems are amd and all of them work nicely on linux arch without doing anything.
    • Never had a problem with TPM and started using that many years ago in Win10. Through several motherboards and OS versions, it just does what it does without complaint. My games library doesn't even know it's there. Secure boot does a lot more than support anti-cheat, as it came along long before anti-cheat software. I've used it religiously since before I started using TPM, and I always liked it for being able to nullify virus contagions that try their best to come in underneath the firmware during boot, so that the OS doesn't see them, etc. That is its purpose, imo. I'll never understand why people who elect to use another OS feel compelled to run down Windows... I guess they need to do that to feel secure about their choices? I run Windows because it supports all the software (including games) natively that I want to buy, and I've never had to run down another OS to make me feel better about it. (Although it's certainly possible to do that, of course...) Win10 is on a ventilator atm, and Win11 is very close to being free, and I finally got to stop running StartAllBack as I moved to the Experimental/Dev channel and my 26300.8553 build supports the moveable taskbar and it's running fine at the top of the screen! Finally, my last major dislike of Win11 is being rectified! So, I'm not at all surprised to see Win11's share of the Steam survey hitting 70%.
    • I can answer about the Linux bit. I only used AMD GPUs. I currently have a 9060XT (8GB) that fits my needs, I'm not a gamer, so I don't need that much GDDR. But lately, NVIDIA has grown a lot in the recent years. Oh, the horrors of NVIDIA drivers not working. But they have been getting better. I know a lot of members onm here that are running cachyOS and other distros, and are fine with a 4090/5090 variants. Really, though, I would stick with AMD variants.
    • Everything they say you can already do yourself on the registry by changing some things.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      Mark Spruce earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Collaborator
      conkir earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      479
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      252
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      71
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      69
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!