Articles Tagged 'Chrome'

Firefox 3.5.7: how to fix the defect of the rounded edges of an image

Sometimes you just move an item, changing the point of view, to solve a problem seems insurmountable. When one has to do with compatibility between browsers and CSS, inventing solutions "spectacular" (stunts would say) is on the agenda. , per Safari e Google Chrome. What I show you an easy way to apply rounded corners to images using -moz-border-radius , which is available for Mozilla FireFox and -webkit-border-radius , Safari and Google Chrome.

Continued ...

Internet Explorer: the largest viral campaign ever made?

Browsers are now an indispensable tool and, quite possibly, the best known software application available. Where once it was this record to applications like Microsoft Word, the podium is now occupied by the application that has revolutionized the computer, communication, and possibly the world. Due to its simplicity, the browser has spread quickly and adaptive capabilities that few other applications have been able to show: cross platforms (cross platform) and cross devices (multi-device).
Surfing the Internet is possible thanks to your browser, we can use it from a PC, a Mac, a handheld, the new "mobile phones".

Continued ...

Creating Desktop Applications with Google Chrome and FireFox?

Google Chrome allows you to create desktop applications from a Web page? In fact, as shown in the menu item, it is simply allowed to create a shortcut to a link that - in turn - open a window without address bar and without all the "frills" of the browser. This does not mean that we have created a desktop application, we have only created a link to the same Google Chrome mode - so to speak-chrome-less.

Feature simle, but more ambitious, had already been proposed by the Mozilla Foundation in 2007, via Project Prism . This is definitely the most versatile and articulate, also accompanied by a useful extension that allows you to create desktop applications menu Firefox, like Google Chrome .

However, both solutions are far from technology Adobe AIR . Before anyone confuses it should be noted the substantial differences between a desktop shortcut that opens a window with no menu, and a real desktop application.
Adobe AIR , in fact, unlike the solutions offered by Google Chrome and Prism allows you to:

  • Virtually complete access to the system running the application with the ability to read and write files. Possibility to extend its functionality through DLLs (dynamic link library), extensions and third-party products as a SHU Player (see Deploying Adobe AIR: AIR Badge from a SHU Player )
  • Manages the application as the other system applications: Install and Uninstall

Continued ...

jQuery against everyone: a benchmark with 5 browser

image A good developer has no problem to switch from one programming language to another. The choice to focus on a particular language, framework or development environment, is dictated more by the availability of time and the type of work that takes place. However, an important factor that may influence the choice of "frameworks" such is the sympathy and affection that can mature over time.
Specifically, I wanted to analyze some - certainly not all - JavaScript frameworks available today, because even "advised" to take a look especially at jQuery .
The creators of mootools (one of the most popular JavaScript frameworks) have made ​​available a tool to run a speed test and validity of five well-known JavaScript frameworks: Slickspeed . This test, the outcome is not discounted at all, it is important to operate as client-side Javascript frameworks, that are executed by your browser. It is precisely for this reason that some find Safari faster than Internet Explorer or Google Chrome faster than Firefox . However, this often depends on the type of page you are viewing. Indeed, it may well happen that a particular site is really more "fast" when viewed in Safari, but this does not mean that "all sites" will be faster with Safari! Obviously this is true for any other browser.

The benchmark

In the test I made ​​with Slickspeed I compared the browsers available on my machine (Windows Vista 64bit Utilmate - Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4GHz with 8Gb RAM).
Unfortunately, the tests are not able to run with Internet Explorer 7, as the car crashed, even going out of scale with the results! Once again, congratulations Microsoft.
I crercato to maintain the same status of the PC during the test run, opening the browser and not individually by sending no other processes running.

Note: If you feel like you also run one or more of these tests, you can comment this post in case of "curious" and several results.

image

Google Chrome is really fast results, with a value of 68 (average) in the test with jQuery . The slower, however, was Flock , despite coming from the same "mother" Mozilla. This poor performance of Flock is really curious as its cutting social networks, because it is precisely the Social Network Web 2.0 to take advantage of many JavaScript frameworks available, so as to provide an experience of truly innovative navigation and interaction.
Surprisingly beats FireFox and Opera also has a nice little ', achieving even a 74 in the performance of Dojo ! FireFox and Safari, on balance, are similar, with Safari faster in tests with Mootools and jQuery.

Which framework to choose?

If you do not mind you testing the speed of execution and do not worry about the normal size in Kbytes of the same framework, the answer might be "what you like" or, if you like, "what you know better or is more harmonious with your style of programming. "
Ultimately, these frameworks will look a bit 'all (see for example the use of $), despite some important and substantial differences that can jump in the eyes of an expert or really pushed the use of a particular library. In principle, in fact, everything that can be done with jQuery, for example, you can do very well with mootools or prototype! If jQuery has a very compact syntax, as all methods always return the jQuery object basis, thus creating endless rows of oggetto.metodo().metodo().metodo()... is said that this is all costs a strength, especially for those who will have to debug!
Libraries like prototype.js sin, perhaps in the absence of effects, even simple, forcing the developer to implement as a spinoff scriptaculous.js , heavy and far from the library first choice.

An example

This last reason, for example, led me to replace the coupled prototype / scriptaculous with jQuery to create interactive panels / Animated undolog.com here in the sidebar. In fact, even using Google API to import libraries, it is wasteful to load all the library and scriptaculous for a slideDown slideUp. For information and an example, here is the Javascript code as it was coupled with the prototype / scriptaculous:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
/ / Prototype / scriptaculous
) . each ( $ $ ('H2.dropdown'). Each (
element ) { function (element) {
= "pointer" ; element. style. cursor = "pointer";
'click' , element. observe ('click',
event ) { function (event) {
this . next ( ) . style . display == "" ) new Effect. BlindUp ( this . next ( ) , { duration : .5 } ) ; if (this. next (). style. display == "") new Effect. BlindUp (this. next (), {duration: .5});
Effect. BlindDown ( this . next ( ) , { duration : .3 } ) ; Effect else new. BlindDown (this. next (), {duration: .3});
event ) ; Event. Stop (event);
}
)
}
);

and it is now with jQuery:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
/ / JQuery
) . each ( $ ('H2.dropdown'). Each (
i ) { function (s) {
) . css ( 'cursor' , 'pointer' ) . click ( $ (This). Css ('cursor', 'pointer'). Click (
function () {
$ ( this ) . next ( ) . is ( ':hidden' ) ) $ ( this ) . next ( ) . slideDown ( ) ; else $ ( this ) . next ( ) . slideUp ( ) ; if ($ (this). next (). is (': hidden')) $ (this). next (). slideDown (); else $ (this). next (). slideUp ();
}
);
}
);

All in all, a closer look, I do not think there is a lot of difference! But as I said before ... the question is "also" of personal taste.

Continued ...