a greasemonkey and a platypus
The latest over-hyped web technology revolution finally, a few months late, hits my Mac.
So imagine there’s a large website you use every day. But there’s something that’s always bugged you about it. Maybe the colour is a bit grating; or those buttons are naff; or there’s some blindingly obvious feature or User Interface opportunity that the site owners just don’t get.
Up until now, your options were to:
- Grit your teeth and continue using the site; or
- Send them an email that would get lost in the 15 layers of misdirection between the people responsible for responding to emails and the people responsible for site design and maintenance. Assuming the latter were interested in what you, a mere user, could possibly have to say.
Well, no more.
Greasemonkey is a Firefox extension that allows user-definable JavaScripts to be run on any particular page that the user wants. WTF? I hear you say? OK, a more concrete example.
Imagine you use Google a lot. One thing you’ve always wanted is the ability to quickly employ the same search terms on other search engines. Well, using Greasemonkey, plus a JavaScript called Butler, you can. Butler places search links to other search engines directly into the Google search results displayed by Firefox. (See a screenshot of this in action.) And the cool thing is that Butler is one of literally hundreds of user-contributed Greasemonkey scripts.
For me, I use Online Banking at one of the big banks here almost every day. But when displayed in Firefox some of the gaps between blocks of text on the Account Balances page are too small, making the page hard to read. Using another new Firefox extension, called Platypus, I was able to insert a couple of breaks between the blocks, and save the result as a Greasemonkey script that will run in future everytime I load that Account Balances page. This took less than 10 minutes; I didn’t need to know any JavaScript; and now a petty web annoyance of mine is gone forever.
Greasemonkey and Platypus: returning power to the people.
Alan
17 May 2005, 22:00 #
Those who know me will know the self evident irony in the example web annoyance I’ve just fixed for myself. Unfortunately, that’s all I can say about it.
Heck
18 May 2005, 04:06 #
I read about this some time ago, and even though I understand your point, I see it as something outrageous in many ways. Rant ahead…
Sure, I’m biased because I spend hours, days and sleepless nights coding HTML and CSS and setting up layouts and designs (and not just for fun, I’m afraid) and now there is a way to throw all that work out the window as if it didn’t matter one jot, if a user has a whim to do so and a little javascript to help.
I never thought I’d use this sentence in my life, and maybe I’ve turned into my father, but this ought to be regulated somehow or we’ll start going back to putting out an 800×600 jpg in place of a site made with html, or turn to goddamned Flash. Ha.
I mean, why bother doing anything if users control it the way they want? There has to be a sensible way to allow for that, a compromise, BUT without sacrificing MANY hours of hard work.
Hey, I’m all for removing ads or target linking (I hated new windows before there were tabs or Mozilla came out. But there could BE a reason why something needs to be open in a new window, sometimes). As I said, I see the good points and why this can be interesting and useful. But also degrading, insulting, and downright dangerous as well.
Check out that list of scripts… “BoingBoing de-Xeni: Remove Xeni’s content from BoingBoing …”
That’s slightly disturbing. And I’ve no love for Boing Boing.
Alan
18 May 2005, 23:07 #
Heck – yours is a hard comment to respond too, as I can totally respect where you are coming from… even if I don’t necessarily agree.
For me the whole point is user control. On my own computer I reserve the right to do anything to your content, just as you may reserve the right to withhold it from me.
This stuff is not new. The way modern browsers allow the user to apply their own stylesheet to a page is another example of user control. Greasemonkey extends this a bit further.
For example, if a user finds the design of a site gets in the way of the content, then on their own machine they should be able to do what they want about it. So if a disabled person creates a Greasemonkey script that fixes the broken accessibility of a website, then that should be regulated too? Where do you draw the line? How do you police it?
Like all new technologies there are effects, good and bad, depending on your viewpoint. Eventually a new equilibrium will be reached.
But remember also that this stuff is massively overhyped at the moment… and I doubt it will be coming to IE6 anytime soon. Relax a little. :-)
Heck
19 May 2005, 09:15 #
Sorry to sound upset, didn’t mean to. When trying to reconcile a client, a manager, and several programmers and designers, about the looks and function of a web, it makes one’s lip quiver to read that users will dispose of it all with a script. :-)
I agree when you say that there are many excellent uses for this technology, absolutely. I want control of my computer, as well. I define or create icons and names for all apps and files, control dependencies between them, erase half the system, hack the screen fonts to see thirty items in a window instead of ten, replace the Finder with a better file manager, “Aqua” doesn’t last five minutes. Etc.
“Talk about regulation. You’re poking yourself in the eye” I hear you say. Jobs could call and say “if you butcher my OS the way you do, I can’t grant you a license…” Fair enough. But I think I’m modifying a “tool” for my own private use, which is not the same as “content”... I still find the Boing Boing example totally creepy, but obviously I am as much of a “user” wanting to bend things my way as anyone else.
You should witness the fights between Me and Other Me in my mind, as Sarah would say… In other news, it’s official that IE7 is coming this year and will have tabs. Even the deaf giants pick up a buzz now and then…
stephen
19 May 2005, 12:28 #
“I mean, why bother doing anything if users control it the way they want? There has to be a sensible way to allow for that, a compromise, BUT without sacrificing MANY hours of hard work.”
I think that’s verging on a false dichotomy anyway. Total control, none at all. It isn’t really like that. There’s a loss of elements of control, that’s all.
The functionality you code in is a natural brake on shagging with the page. If by shagging with it, users break your functionality, well they’ll have to go back, won’t they? And if they don’t go back, my conclusion would be that they do not find your functionality worthwhile. A bitter pill to swallow, I admit.
Second, fairly few users will develop new mods on their own. Rather, they’ll use the scripts created by power-users. So I don’t think the resulting problems will quite so bad.
Third, if you do want total control, that’s still possible in Flash or PDF. You could be working in, say, OpenLaszlo, and be immune, if you really want. But how much do you really want?
You guys will probably want to read this too:
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/05/google_has_deli.html
Heck
19 May 2005, 18:00 #
Wow, Stephen, I read in the article you link to…
“What is the potential here for misuse: perhaps pre-installing Firefox on new machines, outfitted with questionable Greasemonkey extensions in the name of customization and branding.”
... So that people will see what a company wants them to see, modifying something that was NOT meant to be seen the way it’s ultimately presented to the user.
That’s simply scandalous. And surely illegal in many cases.
Google, or anyone else, insert the name of Company X here, can’t be allowed to control the way they want my (or anyone else’s) web site to look or function. We’re not talking of helping the disabled, getting rid of ads, or changing the size of fonts, we’re talking of manipulation and censorship.
Very, very scary.
stephen
19 May 2005, 22:24 #
Microsoft tried doing this with IE- was it called smart tags? And I gather Google are already trying this on with their toolbar. There has been an outcry in both cases. MS gave up. Google has not, pointing out that people choose to install to Google toolbar and turn the auto linking functionality on.
People can already distribute modified Firefox builds, and spyware already does shag with IE to change your user experience.
I think this is Chicken Little stuff, to be honest – that potential for misuse is already there.
You’re right that at the extreme end there could be some interesting copyright issues. But then again… should the developers of Lynx be prevented from offering me a text only view of your site? I can see great accessibility benefits coming out of this.
Anyway, I’m afraid this horse has bolted, so all we can do is think about how we’ll design to cope.
Thought: people can already customise look and feel to a great degree with their own style sheets and font preference. Yet I hardly ever see even changed font defaults, never mind more serious presentation changes. My hunch is that there will not be chaos. What there might be is an informal mess of extensions. Kind of like the plague of animated dino cursos on certain users’ windows boxes a few years ago. Or the way everyone I knew with MacOS 7-9 had DragThing installed.
Heck
20 May 2005, 03:15 #
Yes, I’m aware of the Google autolinks ruckus and previous Microsoft similar efforts. Google is always putting a “we’re nice people” attitude up front, but it’s not enough, if you ask me. Glad Jason Kottke watches them closely. Or something…
Maybe I’m the only one, but it seems to me quite clear that a regulation is sorely needed. Should Lynx be prevented from offering a text only version of my site, you ask? Of course not.
Should a user be prevented from erasing or making invisible anything he wants from my site when viewing it at home? I might not like it, but suit yourself, dear visitor. You can buy a book and tear apart the chapters you don’t like as well.
Should Company X be prevented from inserting links or text I did not put there, or modifying the content (mind, not the way it’s delivered, but the content itself—in a web where to boot I state I am legally responsible for that content or such content is subject to international laws that should prevent messing with it)? Well, hell, yes. It seems so obvious to me that it should go without saying.
Fascinating discussion.
I preferred DragStrip. ;-)
Ben
20 May 2005, 16:11 #
Well Alan it looks like you’ve hit another controversial topic with this post! So I might as well join in the fun to.
My view is very strongly that it is my computer and I will render what I like and how I like it. I have many filtering things in place to remove “features” that some webmasters feel give me important functionality. Guess what I don’t like my windows moved around, resized, my status bar scrolling with crap (its called a status bar not “webmasters doodle bar”) Things that pop up, things that slide crazily all over the place. Things that blink, things that flash, things that advertised things I am not interested in, things that run around after the mouse, things that are in bad fonts, things that are in bad colours.. rant rant rant :-)
So it all goes to to the trash.
I use Opera and by default Java and plugins are disabled (bye bye flash). Javascript is restricted, popups and new windows are gone (I will hold down ctrl when I click a link if I want a new window thanks). And of course I run a filtering proxy so that I can strip more junk from the html before it even gets to opera. Bye bye adverts, animations etc by default. And of course I have selective filters to remove even more on some of the more obnoxious sites.
Occasionaly I will use Opera’s (View page with my style sheet) mode which is great when webmasters think that a 5pt font is a good size for writting. Or green on pink looks great!
So yes I will meddle with your code at will, and how do you propose to regulate that? Only IE is allowed as a browser, anything else renders it slightly differently so that must be banned!
Some years ago I used to use the TV2 site for getting a list of programs on TV, the site was SO SO SO bad, lots of junk on the screen and a tiny bit which showed the programs. What made it worse is it wasn’t a normal scrollable section on the screen, they used javasscript to scroll it when you moved the mosue over the arrow buttons, and it scrolled jerkily. I hated this so much that I wrote a proxy in perl to handle this page specifically. It went through and found the actual useful bit (ie the list of programs and times) and put some tidy html around it to format it in a easy to read table.
The original goal of HTML was to provide content in a way that could easily be rendered according to how the user liked or needed. Things like colours and fonts were not part of the spec, instead things like “Heading”, “Paragraph”, “Emphise”, “Strong” etc. The browser would then show this however it wanted (or preferablly the user). So if you are half blind and need a 30pt font for text, no probs.
Okay I am not advocating a return to that times, but are some relevant points from that original goal which would be nice if people would remember. I use the internet to get content and information. I would like to get that content and information in a way that is optimum for me to absorb!
Well that is a long rant from me. Definately hits on a subject that is important to me!!
And as a final comment to all those worried webmasters (other than Get over it) remember that the majority of users will use IE with no extra products and will see it however you planned.
Ben.
Ben
20 May 2005, 16:22 #
Just an additional note, I had a look at that “BoingBoing de-Xeni: Remove Xeni’s content from BoingBoing” script. That is so cool. I will definately get this plugin (Greasemonkey that is, I don’t need this particular script!)
The script looks really simply too. That is exactly the sort of thing I would love to use in various situations!
Might have to think harder about converting fulltime to firefox. I really love Opera though (7.54 that is, I dislike 8) and firefox doesn’t quite come up to the mark. However there are these cool extensions!
Ben.
Heck
21 May 2005, 02:28 #
Ben, I totally agree with you in many things, and…
“So yes I will meddle with your code at will, and how do you propose to regulate that?”
... falls completely under my second point, when I said:
“Should a user be prevented from erasing or making invisible anything he wants from my site when viewing it at home? I might not like it, but suit yourself, dear visitor. You can buy a book and tear apart the chapters you don’t like as well.”
... but has nothing to do with my concern for the third point I stated after that, which I won’t copy again, no need to litter any more this comment box, I’m doing a fine job as it is… :-)
I insist, I am a user. I can’t deal with ads either. I define everything EVEN in the operating system I use, I put that down up there to show how obssessed I am with control in my terms, over the way I see and deal with information and tools to manage that information. I can’t stand IE. I design thinking of web standards, do the right thing, AND THEN, switch on Virtual PC, load silly Windows, and FIX, fix, fix, the glitches for stupid IE, the browser of the masses. That’s how I work.
I don’t understand why browsers have toolbars, for instance. I’ve never used one of those buttons in years! I don’t even have them in sight. I am ALL for customizing.
“I use the internet to get content and information”, you say.
So do I.
But I am a publisher as well. And the web is a medium to publish. And just like any publication or transmission in radio or tv retains rights over its contents, I don’t see why this should be any different. That’s one danger that should be tackled. What if my photographs are black and white and copyrighted, and someone develops an extension to colorize them and make them reach everybody the modified version? Do they have a right to do it if I state my photographs shouldn’t be modified? I’m not speaking of a user at home.
Maybe youse (er) will understand it if I put it like this… The computer allows you to modify the content easily, the tv does not, but imagine it did. Imagine you could erase Jim Carrey from a movie with your tv set at home, God knows I would. That would be great. Or replace his face with someone else’s, or anything of the kind. Fine. User experience. Cool. Or not if you’re Carrey and know they’re doing this, but whatever.
But then what if a company decides to put a chip in my tv to erase Carrey from any movie without my knowledge? Get the point here? Now, THAT would be wrong. Terribly wrong. Wicked. And that’s one of the dangers of this whole business.
Heck
21 May 2005, 02:36 #
Ah, I wrote “without my knowledge”, because we all seem to agree on the fact that most users will take the tools as they are given and don’t worry much more about it.
I’ve had serious trouble many times, up to this day, to explain to someone that “internet” does not equal “Internet Explorer” and the concept of different browsers just goes way way over their heads.
I can’t blame them, I don’t understand the engine of a car but I expect it to work, and I’m not keen on learning how to “improve it”.
Ben
21 May 2005, 13:22 #
“But then what if a company decides to put a chip in my tv to erase Carrey from any movie without my knowledge? Get the point here? Now, THAT would be wrong. Terribly wrong. Wicked. And that’s one of the dangers of this whole business.”
Yes I agree with you about this. The standard installs of browsers should not come with any of these filters set. That does raise an intresting question about the browsers now that by default block pop-ups??
If a new version of IE came with a built in advert blocker that was enabled by default, then that would be unfair on web providers.
With the TV example its like Video recorders fast forwarind adverts. Back when I bothered with any TV at all I only ever watched it from video tape, never live. So I never saw the ads (well just the highspeed silent versions!). Does this bother the advertisers? Well probably not greatly because it turns out that pretty much 99% of people will watch the TV live anyway and will sit through the ads. However if all new TVs came with a built in Ad skipper that was on by default, then 99% of people would suddenly not see the ads, and this would be a problem to advertisers.
I guess I like being in the 1% :-)
With regard to images, AOL used to (may still do, I don’t know) proxy all images and lower the quality so that less bandwidth was used. There was an option to stop this, but the default was on. I rememeber some people getting upset with this. Artists who had there work on the web were getting comments from AOL users as to how crappy the picture quality was! (You think they would have noticed that everything on the web was like this, but then AOL users never had the reputation of being the smartest)
But back to your first point, where can I get one of those Jim Carrey chips??? :-)
Ben.
Heck
21 May 2005, 15:36 #
Heh. :-)