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.