Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Firefox > Can I disable ALL sounds in Firefox?

Reply
Thread Tools

Can I disable ALL sounds in Firefox?

 
 
Ed Mullen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2006
Janice P. wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:40:26 GMT, Leonidas Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> posted:
>
>> http://kb.mozillazine.org/Muting_browser

>
> Thank you, Lee. I've installed it but have yet to see if it works since I
> haven't come across an embedded sound yet.


http://mozilla.edmullen.net/moz_filetest.html

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Save your breath, you'll need it to blow up your date.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Janice P.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2006
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:38:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> posted:

>http://mozilla.edmullen.net/moz_filetest.html


That is an excellent resource, Ed. Thank you. May I suggest an option for
a tiny three-second MP3 on the main page, and also for a small embedded .wav
file?

I got no audio from the midi file, but I didn't get the little play option
box either. I just got a rectangular outline. I didn't check an mp3 yet
because they're so big for a slow dial-in connection such as mine (the
reason I asked for a tiny one on the main page).

Your page prompted me to finally write a little observation I've been
meaning to voice, but it had to be done with graphics more than words, so I
put it on a free web host. Please look at it and tell me your thoughts:

http://qpowjhfygr.50megs.com/ffprob1.html

J.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Heavens.To.Murgatroid@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2006

Janice P. wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:38:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> posted:
>
> >http://mozilla.edmullen.net/moz_filetest.html

>
> That is an excellent resource, Ed. Thank you.



I enjoyed the poopboy.swf. That was great.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Mullen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2006
Janice P. wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:38:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> posted:
>
>> http://mozilla.edmullen.net/moz_filetest.html

>
> That is an excellent resource, Ed. Thank you. May I suggest an option for
> a tiny three-second MP3 on the main page, and also for a small embedded .wav
> file?
>
> I got no audio from the midi file, but I didn't get the little play option
> box either. I just got a rectangular outline. I didn't check an mp3 yet
> because they're so big for a slow dial-in connection such as mine (the
> reason I asked for a tiny one on the main page).


Small wave and mp3 tests are there now.

> Your page prompted me to finally write a little observation I've been
> meaning to voice, but it had to be done with graphics more than words, so I
> put it on a free web host. Please look at it and tell me your thoughts:
>
> http://qpowjhfygr.50megs.com/ffprob1.html


LOL. Yes, that certainly is one of the pitfalls of specifying your own
page properties. The User Interface can only offer so many options
concerning page styling. You can, however, get much more involved by
using CSS.

On your examples what's happening is that the images used for the menus
are not being loaded because you've over-ridden them with your
preferences. No idea why at this point. Perhaps one of the CSS gurus
will step in and suggest a fix using CSS in Firefox.

Another (obvious) possibility is for me (and other sites) to provide
alternative style sheets from which the user can choose. I could do one
that darkens the background image to suit users who find it too bright.
If I get the time I'll certainly consider that. Shouldn't be too
hard, I just need the time.

And thanks for the nice comments.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
If women wear a pair of pants, a pair of glasses, and a pair of
earrings, why don't they wear a pair of bras?
 
Reply With Quote
 
FoxWolfie Galen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2006
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:31:29 GMT, Leonidas Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Janice P. wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:31:42 -0600, John Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)2.dhs.org>
> > posted:
> >
> >> On 2006-12-12, Janice P <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd like to set Firefox to absolutely ignore any and all embedded sounds
> >>>
> >> Turn down the volume on your speakers?

> >
> > Of course! I should have thought of that! Why should I listen to music I
> > love on my $200 sound card when I could simply turn off the speakers and
> > never have to hear my music interrupted by unwelcome and unexpected spam
> > ever again!
> >
> > Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful advice!
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/yg6aup
> >
> > J.
> >

>
> Good Lord, why react like that?? It was a perfectly reasonable
> suggestion, that many, many people follow. Just because it doesn't work
> for you is no reason to go off on John.


That's not really an effective solution, unless you plan on taping the
volume control to the zero setting. Forget to turn it down just one time
and you end up regretting it at the most annoying and inconvenient times.
Taping the button in place sort of defeats the purpose of owning speakers
for their many legitimate uses. Have you ever been browsing quietly in the
middle of the night while everyone in the house was asleep, only to have
something start blasting away at high volume, waking everyone in the house
and nearly causing a heart attack due to it's unexpected suddenness. Then,
to make things worse, it turns out to be happening in a tab that doesn't
even have focus, so you have to hunt around for the offending tab while
reaching for the speakers at the same time, hoping to kill it as quickly as
possible. The next day, you decide to play some music and hear nothing,
then, after thinking your player was not working, you realize that you had
turned the sound down the night before.

A different solution, that only affects Firefox, but not other programs is
to filter out *.mid, *.wav and *.swf using AdBlock Plus. This works fairly
well for me, though some sounds end up getting through once every couple
months. I don't want to remove my sound-related plugins, as I might
intentionally want to go to a site to listen to music or to view a flash
file. Nothing is more annoying than browsing eBay and having a dozen tabs
open to different listings, when one of them starts a high volume sales
pitch. Any seller who pulls that stunt on me gets a nice big complaint, and
the promise that I will never bid from them no matter how badly I want
their item. Thankfully, that is rare with my current AdBlock filters.

Firefox could use a new option right under the "automatically load images"
option. It would be "automatically play sounds." Better yet would be that
option with a whitelist for acceptable sites. That way, going to a news
site to play a video would allow the sound to be heard, but all other
non-approved sounds would be forever silenced.
--
FoxWolfie
 
Reply With Quote
 
FoxWolfie Galen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2006
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:15:54 -0500, Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Janice P. wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:38:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> posted:
> >
> >> http://mozilla.edmullen.net/moz_filetest.html

> >
> > That is an excellent resource, Ed. Thank you. May I suggest an option for
> > a tiny three-second MP3 on the main page, and also for a small embedded .wav
> > file?
> >
> > I got no audio from the midi file, but I didn't get the little play option
> > box either. I just got a rectangular outline. I didn't check an mp3 yet
> > because they're so big for a slow dial-in connection such as mine (the
> > reason I asked for a tiny one on the main page).

>
> Small wave and mp3 tests are there now.
>
> > Your page prompted me to finally write a little observation I've been
> > meaning to voice, but it had to be done with graphics more than words, so I
> > put it on a free web host. Please look at it and tell me your thoughts:
> >
> > http://qpowjhfygr.50megs.com/ffprob1.html

>
> LOL. Yes, that certainly is one of the pitfalls of specifying your own
> page properties. The User Interface can only offer so many options
> concerning page styling. You can, however, get much more involved by
> using CSS.
>
> On your examples what's happening is that the images used for the menus
> are not being loaded because you've over-ridden them with your
> preferences. No idea why at this point. Perhaps one of the CSS gurus
> will step in and suggest a fix using CSS in Firefox.
>
> Another (obvious) possibility is for me (and other sites) to provide
> alternative style sheets from which the user can choose. I could do one
> that darkens the background image to suit users who find it too bright.
> If I get the time I'll certainly consider that. Shouldn't be too
> hard, I just need the time.


I am also able to reproduce the OP's situation. When a user sets a
preferred background color, all cells in drop down menus, and cells in
tables become transparent. This flaw can be seen on many pages, which
renders the user's override of colors useless. The proper behavior, in my
opinion, would be to paint menu backgrounds and any table cell backgrounds
in the user's specified background color.

I assume a css script could force all table cells and menus to the
specified background color, but this really seems to be an oversight in the
user-specified color handling. I also have an issue with large areas with
bright backgrounds due to photo-sensitivity in my eyes. Currently, the only
solution is to set the brightness on my monitor lower. This causes images
in most other programs to be too dark, so I can never leave it that way.
--
FoxWolfie
 
Reply With Quote
 
Janice P.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2006
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:15:54 -0500, Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> posted:

>Small wave and mp3 tests are there now.


Wonderful! I'm delighted to report that midi, wav, and mp3 all remain
silent with that little extension installed

>On your examples what's happening is that the images used for the menus
>are not being loaded because you've over-ridden them with your
>preferences. No idea why at this point. Perhaps one of the CSS gurus
>will step in and suggest a fix using CSS in Firefox.


I know nothing at all about style sheets, but it does seem to me that if
you're able to recognize and define an area to use or ignore a background
jpeg, you should also be able to define that area as a solid color.

>Another (obvious) possibility is for me (and other sites) to provide
>alternative style sheets from which the user can choose.


I can see the occasional friendly individual doing such a thing, but never
the corporate monolith. Their attitude has always been and apparently
always will be "Tough. March in step or go away."

>I could do one
>that darkens the background image to suit users who find it too bright.
>If I get the time I'll certainly consider that. Shouldn't be too
>hard, I just need the time.


Indeed. If you were to do such a thing, I would personally love to see the
opposite extreme: As dark as possible. Black with primarily light green
text. I miss the days of the greenscreen! In the old days all of the
bulletin board software defaulted to a black background. Dos started black
and it's still black. When did this cruel shift to white creep in? People
lean back from their computers and rub their tired eyes and say "My eyes are
burning so bad! I've been at the computer for hours!" ... well DUH! Their
eyes would also be burning if they stared directly into several hundred
watts of bright white light bulbs, which is about the same as several
hundred watts of bright white monitor screen. But a black screen with
moderately colored text is gentle on the eyes! I can be at the computer
sixteen hours straight and not be frazzled at all, while the whitescreen
user is squirting Visine into his eyes after two hours.

>And thanks for the nice comments.


Oh, you're quite welcome, Ed. It's a fantastic site.

J.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Janice P.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2006
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:54:42 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen <(E-Mail Removed)>
posted:

>The proper behavior, in my
>opinion, would be to paint menu backgrounds and any table cell backgrounds
>in the user's specified background color.


Zackly.

>I also have an issue with large areas with
>bright backgrounds due to photo-sensitivity in my eyes.


And here I thought I was the only person on Earth sitting here in the dark,
surfing the web, wearing sunglasses.

J.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Janice P.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2006
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:50:33 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen <(E-Mail Removed)>
posted:

>Forget to turn it down just one time
>and you end up regretting it at the most
>annoying and inconvenient times.


Hear hear! I just want to reach into the screen and grab the jerk that
embedded that sound and shake him until his teeth rattle.

>Taping the button in place sort of
>defeats the purpose of owning speakers
>for their many legitimate uses.


My point exactly, and I don't believe John was really suggesting something
so stupid, but then, Lee came running to defend him, so I guess anything's
possible.

>Have you ever been browsing quietly in the
>middle of the night while everyone in the
>house was asleep, only to have
>something start blasting away at high volume


Yes, all the time. Or I might be listening to some music or watching a
movie and have it interrupted by some jerk's idea of a funny sound from his
web page. As I said in an earlier post, embedded sounds are almost always
annoying and almost never meaningful. I have never yet come across a single
embedded sound that mattered, that was important, that helped fulfill why I
came to that website, never in all these years, not one.

>Nothing is more annoying than browsing eBay and having a dozen tabs
>open to different listings, when one of them starts a high volume sales
>pitch.


I've written to eBay many times to try and convince them to ban embedded
sounds, but they just ignore me.

>Firefox could use a new option right under the "automatically load images"
>option. It would be "automatically play sounds." Better yet would be that
>option with a whitelist for acceptable sites. That way, going to a news
>site to play a video would allow the sound to be heard, but all other
>non-approved sounds would be forever silenced.


Bingo. We get an option to block images, when they're almost always useful,
but not to block sounds, when they're almost always annoying.

J.

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2006
On 2006-12-13, Janice P <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On the embedded images topic: I would find most useful an option, not to
> exclude images, but to refuse to animate gifs. Just display the first frame
> and leave it at that. I have never seen an animated gif that was important
> to the content of the page. Never! Well, never that I can think of. Some
> were cute in the past, but today they're mostly spam. I would greatly
> appreciate the option to shut them up.


Privoxy can do that, and much more, for you: http://www.privoxy.org

--

John ((E-Mail Removed))
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How can I MUTE ALL sounds on Windows 7 EXCEPT for music on CD player? Lee Computer Information 5 04-26-2012 08:25 AM
Sounds from my laptop like water gurgling - strange comp sounds.wma (0/1) joevan Computer Support 16 06-29-2010 04:30 PM
Re: Can't turn sounds on in Vista..... can someone help? #2 wisdomkiller & pain Computer Support 0 09-10-2008 03:19 PM
Re: Can't turn sounds on in Vista..... can someone help? Darlington Computer Support 0 09-10-2008 07:22 AM
disable Windows login and logout sounds DL Computer Support 6 12-19-2006 01:14 AM



Advertisments