[Noisebridge WebDev] Re(2): Frontend Web Development, Monday 8pm: CSS selectors and the box model

Jeffrey Carl Faden jeffreyatw at gmail.com
Mon Oct 1 00:35:55 UTC 2012


Mozilla is actually developing their own developer tools for Firefox, and they're built-in as of Firefox ~13, without the need of extensions. You can try them out by right-clicking anywhere in the viewport and choosing "Inspect Element." I don't think they're ready for prime time yet, though. They're improving fast, but they lack many core features that I find important. Firebug is a better option in the meantime.

My bias toward Chrome is only due to its upper-hand in usability, speed, and feature support. I had used Firefox for years beforehand, and it's always good to support the work of nonprofits, but in my day-to-day work the costs outweigh the potential benefits.

Jeffrey

On Sep 30, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Aaronco Thirtysix <aaronco36 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Re: Decent Firefox/Iceweasel web-element inspection add-ons besides
> Firebug for WebDev students.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Jeffrey Carl Faden
> <jeffreyatw at gmail.com> explained:
>> The unfortunate fact is, Firebug just isn't as easy to use as Chrome's Developer Tools. For example, there is no way I know of to bring a JavaScript console up regardless of what tab you're in - a feature that I find invaluable in day-to-day work. And having a separate CSS tab, as we saw in the last lecture, is baffling to me.
>> 
>> Fortunately, Chrome can be installed anywhere. If there is a concern with its closed-source components, Chromium - the open source project on which Chrome is based - can be installed instead.
> 
> ===> OTOH, a good case can be made that WebDev students (if not their
> instructors) should use the best software tools available for the
> platforms such students are actually and already using.  In practice,
> this may mean NOT using a one-size fits-all approach of relying upon a
> particular HW architecture (Mac vs. PC), a particular PC OS (Windows
> vs. Linux vs BSD), or a particular browser within that particular OS
> (Chrome/Chromium vs. Firefox/Iceweasel vs. Opera).
> 
> Another aspect well worth considering here is the increasing
> development and competition between platforms. In the case of
> competitive OS's in past years, there was and perhaps still is a
> common perception that if a piece of hardware would work in Linux,
> then it would certainly without question work in MS Windows. Due
> primarily to Microsoft's request to hardware device manufacturers
> (OEMs) that the latter use proprietary device drivers for Windows
> OS's, it could not always be accurately said that a piece of hardware
> working in Windows would necessarily work correctly using the Linux
> kernel or using various Linux distributions' add-on modules.
> 
> I think a closely similar concept applies today in the competition
> between browsers and their tools; here, Google's products (Chrome,
> Chromium) vs. the Mozilla Foundation's (Firefox and its add-ons).
> Since Google naturally wishes to grab market and browser-usage share
> from Firefox/Iceweasel, I think it's entirely fair to claim that if
> there are good features and tools of Firefox/Iceweasel available to
> both end-users and developers, then there is certainly no question
> that Google has already made available similar or even "better"
> features and tools for ITS own browsers.  It is my hope that the
> reverse holds true as well here; if Google has good features and tools
> available for both end-users and developers, then there should be
> little question that the Mozilla Foundation has already made available
> (or will make available from third party devs) similar or even
> "better" features and tools/add-ons for Firefox/Iceweasel.
> 
> Hence my roundabout suggestion to find good element-inspection tools
> specifically for the very popular Firefox/Iceweasel _besides_ the
> recommended Firebug.
> 
> Not written to go out of my way to argue or debate the instructor's
> own choices here, though.
> 
> Re: Webcast / live-streaming improvements for all.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Jeffrey Carl Faden
> <jeffreyatw at gmail.com> explained:
>> I started broadcasting the class about a month ago, mostly as an experiment. I found that broadcasting via Google+ Hangouts takes the least amount of extra overhead to set up, and it's free. I don't know of other free, easy options to broadcast and save a 2.5-hour long class to YouTube, so if anyone has a suggestion, I would be happy to try them out.
>> 
>> Again, I'd like to re-stress the fact that I already spend a good amount of my free time setting up the class notes, assignments, teaching the actual classes, etc. I don't have much more time to ensure that the webcast goes without a hitch. The class is intended to be attended in person, with the webcast being more of a crutch for those who can't make it at times.
> 
> ===> I'm sure that the instructor is receiving absolutely _plenty_ of
> positive feedback for the time & effort spent to set up "the class
> notes, assignments, teaching the actual classes. etc." for the current
> NB Frontend WebDev beta classes (Series 3).
> IMHO, there is likewise every reason to anticipate that the
> combination of future NB Frontend WebDev betas (upcoming Series 3
> sessions, Series 4 sessions, Series 5 sessions, ...etc.) and upcoming
> streamed webcasts will _clearly_ demonstrate continual improvements
> based upon the instructor's time & effort spent :-)
> 
> -A
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> WebDev mailing list
> WebDev at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/webdev


More information about the WebDev mailing list