That extension makes a big difference and i would not want to be without it. It should have millions of users instead of only 36k. I have mine set in options at 96.
The text does look a lot better. I'm also left wondering why so few users. Is there any downside to using it?
Agree with that. I could not distinguish between the Before/After on the Overview page. I try hard to keep my extension count to a minimum, so Font Rendering Enhancer didn't make the cut.
You know you don't need a separate extension for "I don't care about cookies"? You can add the same list into uBO.
I don't care fonts, but surprised to find that font-smooth property is not available on any browser on Windows. So if the extension is meant to complement that, you won't see difference in other platform. Note font rendering can vary on OS, browser, and actual fonts on each pages. IDK how it works, but I found there are many hacks to achieve similar effect - if what the extension do is only (any combination of) these tricks there'll be no need for it, you can use Stylus or even uBO or AdGuard tho universally apply CSS rules on the latter is not directly possible. Just for curiosity I tested one of the hacks w/ uBO rule on the latest Brave on Win10 for Google search (I just copy-pasted that 0.2px value, but others claim different values. There seems to be many more hacks but I have no interest in testing them all): Code: google.*##body:style(-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0.2px !important) https://i.imgur.com/pgKYrYi.png https://i.imgur.com/R9mzCm1.png
That means they haven't spent the same level of effort for the filter as the extension, for uBO or AG or even ABP have all the necessary function to remove virtually any cookie warnings. Having compared the filter w/ Fanboy and AG Annoyances filters, I'd say the filter is more likely to cause FPs than at least AG Annoyances. I personally only use my own filters for cookie consents but I guess for most ppl AG Annoyances alone will be enough - if it's not just use the element picker.
It's so weird that this problem has never been fixed on Chromium based browsers, Google should be ashamed. This extension seems to work on some sites, but not on all, that's the downside. For example, I don't see any difference on Yahoo Finance, fonts look a bit blurry. No problem on Firefox.
Google’s new extension lets you easily create deep links to web page text fragments June 17, 2020 https://mspoweruser.com/googles-new...create-deep-links-to-web-page-text-fragments/ Boldly link where no one has linked before: Text Fragments
yes, i saw this lately in googles search with added #:~:text=loremipsum in some results (eg wikipedia) some more https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fragment/onabdcmognnippccjhcomlaniijgmkie https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/link-to-fragment/edldjmaahfpnohhdhcbcmaedmnmfjgab https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/copy-text-fragment-url/bemdbglmlhlkmkgfnleiofphhekephnm for firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/fragment/ https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/auto-find-text-fragment/
nano defender https://jspenguin2017.github.io/uBlockProtector/#extra-installation-steps-for-ublock-origin stylish = spyware, get stylus user agent switcher = trouble ahead popup blocker for chrome = pointless with ublock extensity shows up that you dont know how to use those extensions. if you dont know: uninstall nothing is more worse than a wrong set up extension. and yes, a lot of vpn for video sites, in special youtube
Guys is it true that certain extensions won't work in Chromium based browsers if you choose for the "On specific sites" options? I noticed that when you want extensions like Video DownloadHelper and Cookie AutoDelete to work on only a couple of sites, they don't do anything. Can anyone check? https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cookie-autodelete/fhcgjolkccmbidfldomjliifgaodjagh https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/video-downloadhelper/lmjnegcaeklhafolokijcfjliaokphfk