Aptana Debugger Extension Install Firefox Failed To Start Because Its Side

Just today I have encountered a problem with Chrome. Whenever I attempt to run it, it will not open. I looked in task manager and the application is not running nor are its processes.

Then some minutes later, Chrome disappeared from my task bar even though I had it pinned. I can still find it in the start menu so I have a shortcut of it on my desktop. The shortcut also doesn't open it. Today Windows did do some updates, but I believe I had this problem before it did the updates.

Restarting the computer doesn't resolve the issue. I use Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit and the laptop model is a Dell N7110 I looked in Event Viewer and it did give an application error and appcrash event.

Hi and welcome to Sevenforums, After a brief search how long have you had Trend Micro installed? Which might be missing from this list but you never know it is a Mcafee knock off I'd use system restore or undo what ever you did testing, Clean boot, Click Start and type in the search box, msconfig Click on the suggestion on top or hit the Enter key, Go to the Startup section and take some screen shots for a complete list, Go to the Services section and on the bottom left Check the box to Hide All Microsoft services, Repeat the screen shots, See the links above my signature on how to take and upload screen shots here, Cheers. If you want to copy and paste code please use the '#' symbol in your replies it makes for a easier to read reply. Otherwise paste it into Notepad and upload it as a text attachment.

Keyboard Logitech G710+/ 2nd Acer original both wired Mouse 2-RedDragon M901 Perdition 16400 dpi Gaming mouse = wired PSU EVGA SuperNOVA 850w-P2 80+ PLATINUM/with 2-APC XS-1500 Case 2-Corsair Obsidian Series 450D Black ATX Mid Tower Cooling Corsair H110i GT Liquid rad(4)-SP140(3)-AF140(1)-AF120Blue Hard Drives 2-Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD's/ 3-2.5 W.D. Black 1tb-&3-1tb/3-3.5 WD Black 1tb hdd's Internet Speed Comcast Ping 19ms 89.31mbps download speed 6.12mbps upload Antivirus Panda Free/ Malwarebytes Pro/ Superantispyware Pro Browser FireFox & Pale moon Other Info 2nd ASUS TUF X299 Mark 2/Intel i9-7900x with EK-KIT P280 liquid cpu loop kit/7H-Prem-x64/Corsair 450D case/Ram 4x4gb's Corsair dominator platinum 2666 / Samsung850Evo 250gb SSD/Dual ssd EZ swap evo/PSU EVGA SuperNova 1200w-P2 80+Platinum/GPU EVGA GTX 1080ti FTW ICX/4-SP140 green led case fans 2 front intake 2 top exhaust. Keyboard Logitech G710+/ 2nd Acer original both wired Mouse 2-RedDragon M901 Perdition 16400 dpi Gaming mouse = wired PSU EVGA SuperNOVA 850w-P2 80+ PLATINUM/with 2-APC XS-1500 Case 2-Corsair Obsidian Series 450D Black ATX Mid Tower Cooling Corsair H110i GT Liquid rad(4)-SP140(3)-AF140(1)-AF120Blue Hard Drives 2-Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD's/ 3-2.5 W.D. Black 1tb-&3-1tb/3-3.5 WD Black 1tb hdd's Internet Speed Comcast Ping 19ms 89.31mbps download speed 6.12mbps upload Antivirus Panda Free/ Malwarebytes Pro/ Superantispyware Pro Browser FireFox & Pale moon Other Info 2nd ASUS TUF X299 Mark 2/Intel i9-7900x with EK-KIT P280 liquid cpu loop kit/7H-Prem-x64/Corsair 450D case/Ram 4x4gb's Corsair dominator platinum 2666 / Samsung850Evo 250gb SSD/Dual ssd EZ swap evo/PSU EVGA SuperNova 1200w-P2 80+Platinum/GPU EVGA GTX 1080ti FTW ICX/4-SP140 green led case fans 2 front intake 2 top exhaust. Similar help and support threads Thread Forum For the past week or so I've had a problem opening Google Chrome after I close it. The only way I can open it is when I do a reboot. Then if I close it again - same thing!!!!

I've already uninstalled and re-installed Chrome and same thing. I always have the habit of deleting browsing history. Browsers & Mail So Guys, Uhm, Google Chrome Keeps The Ram Up To 100% Up When I Open it For The first time i mean after i boot up the computer then when i start up the google chrome browser the RAM Gauge it's being Up. I Don't Why?! Can you Help Me.,, Advance Thanks To all Who Will Help;):D Browsers & Mail As far as I can tell, I have the right extensions installed to allow the following to happen: When clicking a link, the new link is to open in a new tab.

This apparently is working fine except when I'm in a Google search screen (ie, searching for something using Google). When clicking a link.

34524, Platform, SWT, grant_gayed, RESO, NOT_, RC2: JVM crashes when attempting to launch file browser, 2008-06-03. 444008, Platform, Debug, platform-debug-inbox, RESO, NOT_, Unable to resolve plug-in 'platform:/plugin/com.aptana.php.debug.epl/icons/full/obj16/remote_debug.gif'. J7Qpo9CrODj0 extensions firebug@software.joehewitt.com 584 addons.xpi DEBUG Calling bootstrap method install on. On the other hand, because the input is synthesised, it is possible to use WebDriver instructions to interact with hidden Firefox windows, and Firefox windows that are.

Browsers & Mail i tried to upload report but it says 'report.nfo: invalid' BSOD Help and Support:mad: Irritating! I was on the Channel 4 website watching videos, then I closed Google Chrome, opened iTunes (which incidentally doesn't work now either, keeps freezing), tried to go back into Google Chrome, no joy, neither with Firefox or IE. They just won't open! What's going on here?!

Browsers & Mail Our Sites Site Links About Us Find Us • • • • • • •.

Ask HN: Webdevs, designers: what devtools should we (Mozilla) build in Firefox? Hacker News 470 points by I'm @paulrouget. I'm part of the Firefox Developer Tools team (we are working on the builtin tools and Firebug). I believe that the HN community includes a lot of web developers and designers, so I guess you can help us. We have recently added a bunch of new builtin tools in Firefox (please try Firefox Aurora or Firefox Nightly to see a recent version of these tools). We also redesigned the way we show these tools (screenshot here: We are now working on defining what should be our next moves, and I'm trying to gather as much feedback as possible. The current plan is to build a bunch of performance-related tools (see improve the user interface (better theme), make the tools remotable (for mobile development), and drastically improve the WebConsole (see an experiment here: But we really want to get as much feedback as possible to make sure we're going into the right direction.

What do you think we should add/remove/fix in our tools? Anything you miss from Chrome or Opera? Or anything you haven't seen yet you'll like to see part of the browser? PS: because a lot of people have raised concern about 'cluttering' Firefox: we are considering providing some of these tools only as addons, to keep the Firefox DevTools as simple as possible.

This is a big request: Improve 'design in the browser' capabilities. Pushing CSS/HTML and maybe JS changes made in Dev Tools back to the source files without manual shenanigans in the middle. I probably waste more time copying CSS / HTML tweak diffs from the browser back into the related source files than anything else with in browser dev tools. Due to the nature of 'losing changes' if I happen to hit refresh or if the page has some automatic polling mechanism I also tend to do this very often as some sort of manual 'save' action. There have been a couple attempts to do this ( or ). But, I'd really like to see a standardized protocol for pushing changes to the server such that server side frameworks can implement it appropriately.

For example a server side implementation for Rails needs to understand the asset pipeline to know how the final file was created so it can work its way back to the correct file to save changes to. This also means you probably need source map style support for LESS and SASS also.

Also to change HTML template files the server side needs to know how the page was constructed so it can find the correct partial / template to save changes to. Which is probably really hard depending on how much state based conditional rendering there is in your templates, maybe the server side caches the last response and associated state to work around this. I'm the author of, it tries to solve this exact problem for Chrome Devtools.

(someone else mentioned this in this thread). I've spent some time thinking about the problem. In an ideal world a standardized protocol to push changes to a server would be awesome. I think it's unrealistic though to expect widespread adoption especially for existing frameworks to add code just for doing this.

For example, have you ever heard of WebDAV? It was thought up along the same lines and it's virtually dead now. A better solution for now would be for source maps to tell you the full local path to the original source file. Yes, in a world where we all develop from Chromebook-like devices against files in the cloud, this won't work. We are a long way from that world at the moment. What about pre-processors (SASS, Less) or templating engines (ERB, Haml, Slim)?

That would seem to be a huge task to 'un-pre-process' an asset. Going backwards is immensely difficult. These are not easily reversible processes. Instead, why not make something like IntelliJ/RubyMine/WebStorm/etc.' S Live Edit plugin a native part of the browser. Allow the asset pipeline to tell the browser it has changes available, rather than try to have it regurgitate all the processed assets. That would be relatively easy to add and very straightforward to implement.

Isn't that the wrong way around? Instead of pushing to the web server and let it figure out where to put the changes, change the local file (or file on the server, via NFS or such) and push the changes to the browser as well using tools such as swankjs [1] or, once it's ready, Kite [2] (that's my pet project).

For higher-level languages like Coffeescript or SASS, run a local compiler on the file or function so you can push the compiled code to the browser. A nice side effect of this approach is that you can use a real code editor instead of the Notepad-style editor embedded in the browser. In that regard, my #1 feature request for the Firefox devs is to finish and implement the remote debugging protocol [3] and, preferably, work with the WebKit devs towards unifying the two protocols. (Disclaimer: I'm working on to try to solve this exact problem.) I've been thinking about this issue a lot over the last year, and it's really as hard as you state (and then some). We ended up having to create our own supersets of the DOM/CSSOM in order to keep track of individual elements/selectors as they are created/removed/changed. I would be very surprised (and pleased) if Mozilla was able to implement this in a way that works without lots of additional/manual inputs. If you think JS source maps are a hard problem to solve, I'd say this one is at least an order of magnitude harder.

My thought is that this is really most useful for CSS and the transformations that SASS/LESS are capable of are relatively mundane in comparison to CS ->JS. In addition I only see this as a tool for development, not something that I would want running in production so you don't have the concerns over increased file size or still supporting minification that you do with source maps, assuming you want source maps in production for error reporting. I can envision simply using structured CSS comments to pass the needed information to the browser. The browser only needs a structured pushing protocol, baseline comment format, probably handling of comments that indicate file boundaries (used for pushing to the correct resource) and a 'plugin api' to allow plugins to parse other comments in a meaningful way, SASS/LESS could provide a 'Dev tools' plugin to parse the comments and support whatever editing features they wanted. They would also have to support generation of the comments in the preprocessor.

The important bit is a standardized pushing protocol, a standardized way to provide additional mapping information and a standardized 'plugin' style system to allow things like SASS to add to dev tools additional editing support. Just one theoretical approach, still a ton of work, but I really think there is a lot of developer time spent dealing with this issue so it may well be worth it. Not perfect but what I did last time I played with backbone: * As I used sass, coffeescript and haml, I used guard () to watch the source files and automatically compile them * Used serve () to serve the directory over http, could use python -m SimpleHTTPServer too * Used live.js to pull for changes () As I said it's not perfect though, while CSS changes get applied transparently, changes in javascript will reload the page (you can also watch only for CSS changes).

Still for working on CSS, especially together with LESS or SASS it's quite pleasant. Also it spams your Firebug console pretty bad. Chrome Canary (perhaps, the Dev channel, too) supports navigation to CSS selectors, property names and values (Ctrl-click them) in the corresponding Sass resources (the Sources panel).

You can edit Sass and save it to disk (right-click the editor, 'Save as.' Now, if you have the 'Support for Sass' experiment enabled, you'll see the 'Auto-reload CSS upon Sass save' timeout setting to reload re-generated CSS files after 'sass --watch in:out --sourcemap' (or equivalent) has updated them on the local disk.

I have to be honest - I find the developer tools a pain: They aren't even close to replacing Firebug, yet they're more obtrusive. So I can't stop using Firebug, and I can't remove the unwanted built-in menu options. So for me personally, what I'd really like to see is either one of: - Match Firebug feature for feature - Allow for the dev tools to be completely removed from the interface Sorry, but it really does come down to those two: Whilst the Dev Tools can't replace Firebug, I won't use them.

So either allow me to get rid of them, or allow me to switch 100% to them. Sorry it's not more constructive, but I've no interest in having to juggle between two different debug tools because they both have awesome features. So I don't care what amazing new stuff you might be lining up, I won't use them until all of the functionality I use in Firebug is also available in FF's builtins. >That's why we still work on Firebug To be quite frank, this is really ridiculous to me.

Why in heck are there TWO separate developer tools for one browser that are both in-house? Supporting both tools means that neither one moves as quickly, and there's a ridiculous amount of confusion as to which one to use.

Imagine the noobie developer that has cut their teeth on the elegant Chrome dev tools. Now they need to do some Firefox compatibility work and the first thing that happens when looking at the documentation they see both 'Firefox dev tools' and 'Firebug' being referenced, each with different use cases and slightly different functionality.

I don't think any other issue is matters as much until you can solidify your efforts and officially support just one set of tools. Once you do that, then I think it's worth talking about all the other improvements that need to be made. >>I can't remove the unwanted built-in menu options.

>Firebug allows you to do that. Please please tell me how to do this. I want the 'Web Developer' menu gone. I want Firebug as a first-class entry in the Tools menu again. And while you're at it, it would be really nice to have 'View Source' and 'View Page Info' in the View menu again. Perhaps I'm a little bitter, considering I saw the DOM Inspector ripped out of Firefox, relegated to Firebug, kicked around, and now that Firebug is awesome, I see weird versions of a Firebug subset getting in the way. Why couldn't it be part of the browser, and why not just put Firebug in the browser if you want it back in?

I couldn't agree with this more. I work primarily in Chrome and find it very frustrating nowadays when I have to switch to Firefox to debug. Back in the days when Firebug was the only show in town, I loved working in Firefox. Dev Tools gets in the way. I appreciate the flashy experiments like Firefox Command Line but there's little chance of them entering into my everyday workflow unless I have the chance to learn them properly. I won't get the chance to learn them properly until I reach for Firefox as my main development browser. On another note: The Chrome Network panel is invaluable to me and streets ahead of the Firebug Net panel.

I find it hard to explain why I prefer it as the features are fairly similar, but the experience is much better. Maybe it's about the layout and clarity vs.

Density of information. Honestly, the absolute best thing you could do for any dev, is lighten the footprint FF currently has on my ram, and continue to improve the api for add-ons/plugins. The more stable, extensible and fast FireFox is, the more useful I will find it for development. But if more kludge is added to it, and it continues to get slower/bigger, the less likely I am to continue to use it, regardless of what amazing plugins are available (FireBug, Web Developer Tool Bar, etc) If you are just looking at what's best to add to the browser itself, just look at the plugin market to see what's in wide use. What about an easy way to redistribute customized versions of Firefox?

What im thinking about is something like a software pack or plugin bundles, similar to ninite. Very much like the spf-13 vim distribution. Or like some of the bundled eclipse distributions, like PyDev or Aptana. It's a batteties included idea. There are a lot of cool plugins, but new users don't always know what to get. But if if it was easy to fork Firefox and add some plugins and redistribute it in whatever forums or communities they prefer, that would be cool.

So there may end up being a Firefox for reddit, for image processing, for web design, for web dev, etc. I'd say 30 processes is a lot better than 1 process. 1 process is better than 300 processes, and I sometimes have more than 300 tabs open. (I always have more than 100 tabs open.) If I open two new tabs simultaneously, the whole browser can freeze for a bit. People who prefer one process per tab tend to mention that tabs freeze up their browser, and I believe them, but this never happens to me. Maybe it's because I use NoScript and have all plugins disabled, except for Flash, which I block with Flashblock.

What about memory analysis tools for javascript? Im my experience ATM most developers don't have a clue about whether they have memory leaks and where the could optimize (javascript) memory usage. Chrome does have heap snapshots. Also chrome has some tools to analyze thos snapshots they are still far from what the Eclipse Memory Analyzer can do for Java apps. Fortunately chrome heap snapshot support will be coming soon for the Eclipse Memory Analyzer. IE BTW now has similiar heap analysis tools. Regards, Markus.

First off, thanks for reaching out to the community like this. A few things: Visualized event bindings. Would be awesome to have a visual indicator of event bindings right on the page. Color-coded bounding boxes drawn around elements with a label denoting the event type. Clicking on that box (or label in the case of an element with multiple bindings or nested elements with bindings) would direct you to the code that does the binding. An aggregate repaint view. Chrome lets me view repaints but it clears after every one.

If I have a method that is doing a lot of dom manipulation, I have to step through the code to view all of the repaints. Would be great to have the repaint bounding boxes drawn with a low opacity background so that I could see (and clear out) an aggregate view (with highly redrawn areas having higher opacity due to there being multiple layers). An intelligent debugger that would automatically step over certain files (selectable per debugging session). I occasionally want to step into jQuery but less often than not. I know I can step over those methods but would be great if I could just keep stepping in without accidentally stepping into something when I don't want to. I'll edit this as I think of more. EDIT: Breaking on navigation or on a particular request in order to manipulate headers.

Breaking on the response from those requests for the same reason (plus manipulating the body). The timeline and profiles sections in Chrome are under-utilized but infinitely useful. Anything close to those would be much appreciated. Throw warnings for potentially orphaned event listeners. Granted, the number one offender recently introduced methods to address this (backbone's #stopListening) but it's still a easy mistake to make.

This might bleed into too much hand-holding and open up a can of worms but just a thought. Throw warnings for overloaded event listeners that fire a lot. Like the last suggestion, this may be heading in a direction you don't want to go in (educating the developer by means of the dev console) but, all too often, I find pages that overload, e.g., the scroll event.

If there was some way to inform the developer of this potential problem, I think the web at large would greatly benefit. Perhaps this and the last suggestion would better reside in an auditing section?

>Visualized event bindings. Would be awesome to have a visual indicator of event bindings right on the page. Color-coded bounding boxes drawn around elements with a label denoting the event type. A bit of shameless self promotion - I wrote a bookmarklet to do that asking talking to a couple of Mozilla folks a few years back:. Source is available on GitHub:.

The biggest problem I faced with this is that there is no DOM method to get a list of the events that have been bound to a node. Possibly a Firefox plug-in would have the ability to access that information, but it can't be done through the DOM at the moment, so I had to resort to parsing the information available from the libraries, each needing its own integration file. It would be nice if there was a way (or ways) to ease the pain of debugging minimized CSS/JS files. We've all been there, right? Uncaught exception on Line 2, Column 49,392 of /foo/jquery.min.js, right? For well-known source files (like major jQuery releases, etc) perhaps the debugger could (optionally) switch to the unminimized version.

This could be done via file hash comparisons based on a table stored on Mozilla's servers (oh, I see you're using jquery.min.js which has a hash of 498DE248A4B which corresponds to the unminimized file jquery-1.9.1.js on Google's CDN) or perhaps the debugger could just optionally substitute 'foo.js' for 'foo.min.js' if it exists on the server. For cases when #1 fails, perhaps the debugger could at least pretty-format the source code so that it's not all on a single line of code 30,000 (or whatever) characters long, so that breakpoints could be set. My biggest annoyances with the dev tools right now are: 1. The debugger has no REPL. If you evaluate a statement in the console, it doesn't run in the current stack frame and has no access to locals, etc.

The only way to execute a statement in the current stack frame is to add it as a 'watch' and then delete it. There's no way to get to the console from the debugger and vice versa.

You have to activate them independently in two steps, which is annoying because I almost always want both of them. Also, they stack in a different order depending on the order they're activated, which is unnecessarily confusing. There's no way to 'pause on uncaught exceptions'. It's either 'pause on all thrown exceptions' or nothing. Also, the UI is buried in a menu. Exception breakpoints should be shown in the breakpoint pane like other breakpoints, and should be filterable by exception type and whether the exception is caught or not. I think I'm just used to the WebKit dev tools, but I find it requires more work to get to the Script tools, etc in Firefox than Chrome.

For example, in FF I have to go to Tools ->Web Developer ->Debugger to get to the debugger. I can't just get there by doing 'Inspect Element'. I'd like to see all the tools combined into one mode and allow me to pop it out into a new window. If I can do that right now, it's just not intuitive. Also, it'd be great if FF pushed people away from Firebug, as I didn't know FF had built in tools and I was resorting to Firebug each time. Just some thoughts. Race Movie Mp3 Ringtone Download.

I would like a record/replay feature for AJAX requests or at least an interface where I could easily assemble a request as if it was sent from the current app. A possible 'exporter' for the changes you made on the current web page would help some people I know, specially with CSS stuff. Some integration with MDN documentation would also be a boon, like right-clicking a function and seeing the docs.

Like Lisp HyperSpec gizmo. I don't think that the inclusion of dev tools is cluttering or bloating. We should always include them even if the final user never uses it. The potential for a free tweekable web is there.

Lots of people start learning more about webmaking by trying stuff on web consoles. PS: On saturday I will be a speaker on the largest Javascript event in Rio de Janeiro ().

I will be speaking about Firefox OS (I am a mozillian volunteer) and I will be showing all my stuff using the current devtools from the responsive design view to the web console, so BIG THANKS to @paulrouget and the team for making my life easier! So far I'm just not using the Developer Tools at all, because they don't give me what Firebug does. Debugger, Inspect and Web Console just aren't working well together, aren't interegrated smoothly into each other and I hardly can get from one to the other. I can't enable ALL of them at once.

If they _were_ like Chrome's tools or Firebug I'd wish for the features of Firebug's XPath and CSS extension: input expression, get matching elements highlighted. So, either they have to be as useful as Firebug, or throw them out to keep FF lean for users who doesn't need them anyways. Also 'keep the DevTools as simple as possible' makes absolutely no sense to me as a Web Developer - I need those tools as GOOD as possible and as USABLE as possible with a specific range of features I've come to expect from Firebug and Chrome.

I mean, I basically live with an open Firebug during work. I'd greatly appreciate a performance monitor that is tab specific or even code specific. If you can dial down that one of my methods are using up 80% of my memory, please let me know. Or if the reason my page keeps crashing is because some knucklehead is still using flash poorly for ads, then I need to know that. From that, if you can 'label' sites or ad styles or script styles that are known to perform poorly, that would be amazing. I find it difficult to edit code in place and see its change.

It'd be nice if when I Right Click >Inspect Element; I can track the changes, and maybe even see side by side comparisons. Most of us have multiple monitors so screen real estate isn't an issue. Maybe even be able to let us launch a new window and edit the currently rendered page would be nice. Embed mozrepl or something simular. I'd like network based access (restricted to a socket or localhost by default) to the innards of the browser.

Mozrepl works, but has proven fragile. I've had to make several updates to keep it working with the latest Firefox nightlies. I've currently got mozrepl hooked to emacs so when I save a js, coffeescript, or css/scss file it live updates the page. This makes development so much quicker. I know there's several other methods of achieving this, but to be clear I'm not talking about reloading the page, I'm talking about updating the backbone model of type Foo to have a new definition when I save model/Foo.coffee. I can also see this being useful for acceptance testing.

I'd imagine that the Selenium project would also be interested. >Embed mozrepl or something simular. I'd like network based access (restricted to a socket or localhost by default) to the innards of the browser. Mozrepl works, but has proven fragile. I've had to make several updates to keep it working with the latest Firefox nightlies.

That looks really interesting. I just tried out swank-js and it worked for simple javascript, but it didn't work with dojo (going to debug that and see if there isn't an easy solution). How does this work with more complex javascript?

Does it work with libraries like jquery or dojo? Does the link you gave have your fixes? I will probably give this a try tomorrow, thanks for the link! I use it primarily with ExtJS and backbone. What I've done with mozrepl is inject some global javascript, then call methods off it over the network link, so for instance I have a reloadModel method that will remove the model's definition (basically delete window.Foo, but a bit more to it), then reload's the JS file which re-creates it. I've got this bound to occur automatically with emacs when coffeescript/js files save.

This method works for anything that can be removed from a system then reloaded. I'm not sure you could do that with jQuery, but you might be able to with a plugin I suppose. No idea on dojo, sorry. My fixes for the nightlies is at: I haven't submitted a pull request until I'm sure things have settled down with the Firefox changes, but plan to do so soon.

Hit me up if you want further details. Add better support for keyboard shortcuts. I use firefox every day and I still prefer it to chrome because it has better keyboard shortcuts, but they could be better still. I can't disable Ctrl-P/Cmd-P that maps to print screen. I use emacs and this conflicts with many shortcuts that I am used to using. The print dialog takes a full second to display.

I haven't had a printer in 8 years. Firefox gives webpages more extensive key capture capability then chrome.

Some pages take away the ability to press Ctrl-L to get to the firebug console, this requires me to use a mouse. I don't know how to setup a key mapping to change the zoom style. I would love to see something akin to YSlow's Statistics tab. I also support the idea of not competing with Firebug, and possibly absorbing it into the Firefox project. It seems wasteful to have developer resources tied to both in parallel. To the existing dev tools in Firefox: - The UI layout could be improved quite a bit, expanding by default and taking up less screen real estate. The CSS panel could be part of the source view, like most devtools UI.

Lots of space on the right side going unused in that panel anyway. - devtools.inspector.htmlHeight needs to at least be doubled - everything under devtools.inspector. Needs to default to true (I realize this is contradictory to my earlier statement about real estate - Is the 3D view really needed? Seems like this could be an add-on also.

- Picky one: I would prefer the toolbar/breadcrumbs to be on the top of the panel. Makes it easier to distinguish on a page that looks similar. I do really like the:hover:active toggles, and the markup viewer mode though.:). I'm a big Firefox fan for one major reason: it's the most customizable browser out there. I just love the right-click/Customize and all the available extensions. My suggestion won't be for a new tool, but it's a suggestion anyway: Please always allow users the decide what they prefere. Choose any defaults you think are the best, but always add a configuration to be able to change it!

An example of this: I don't remember when exactly, but in one release, Firefox devs decided to remove the 'loading cursor'( ) without any config:about setting to enable it back!!! I was furious, not simply because I prefere to see this loading cursor, but because Firefox didn't allow me the choose what I wanted. Thanks for reading and thanks a lot to all devs contributing to this wonderful browser! ----- (By the way, it's now possible to enable the loading cursor using ui.use_activity_cursor = true).

Cookie handling needs to be visible, not just for devs, but normal users. Maybe a little bar that shows that first party and 3rd party domains are offering cookies and users can allow them as needed or set defaults they are happy with (like having to white-list third-party cookies on an as-needed basis instead of allowing everyone to track you by default). Not only would these cookie controls allow for easier development, but they would make it obvious that sending cookies back to a site is something that the browser (as an agent for the user) is doing voluntarily on behalf of the user, so we can do away with 'cookie laws'. The fact that cookie laws exist is related to the fact that nobody understands that accepting/using cookies is perfectly voluntary. Nobody knows this because cookies management is insanely obscure and difficult in all browsers Firefox inclusive. Jan Odvarko, the current maintainer of Firebug, is on our team.

He's currently the only Mozilla employee dedicated to the Firebug project. He's joined by a healthy community (you can follow the project at ). Jan and the Firebug team are actively improving Firebug - not just maintaining it so it doesn't break.

The bulk of the Mozilla staff (and our volunteer community) is focused on the built-in tools, but a lot of it ultimately benefits the Firebug team. The standby example is our debugger.

A lot of the performance and stability problems Firebug has are a symptom of the old Spidermonkey debugging API (JSD). The developer tools and Spidermonkey team built a new debugging API[1] along with a remote debugging server. The Firebug team is currently working to update Firebug to the new debugging API/remote server. Most of our work is dedicated to the built-in developer tools.

But those also support Firebug development. I love the work that you guys are doing on these tools, they've really come a long way in a short period of time. I find I prefer them to the Chrome tools for a number of reasons. However, I occasionally swap to Chrome for a couple of things: - The timeline tab. I know there's a profiler panel in FF now, but I have trouble interpreting the results.

This may have changed. - Better stack traces - The networking tab. Looks like this is in the pipeline. I can't wait to see what you come up with). - In the style editor, as an Emacs user, I always accidentally ctrl+n to a new stylesheet instead of the next line.

I'd really enjoy an easier way to edit keybindings. - Live editing of JavaScript in the debugger would be really killer - I often wish the debugger had the 'pretty print' button Chrome offers to diminify scripts in the Sources tab. On another note, Paul, I love the work you're doing on JSTerm. Keep up the great work. Thanks for doing this post! Some things I'd like to see: * Less UI chrome. The blue bar doesn't need to be blue and element breadcrumbs don't need to be fancy styled boxes.

Large elements don't even fit in them and get chopped off. * When I hit Ctrl-Shift-I the FDT open, but if I have the dialog detached it immediately loses focus and I have to alt-tab to see it.

* I find Chrome's Network inspector to be very useful for tracking APIs and checking headers/responses etc. * It'd be nice if Firefox had an option to 'deminify' Javascript source in the debugger. The same for CSS. * Built in html/css/js lint would be a nice feature * Right click ->Save option for CSS.

The 'Save' hyperlink is great but it took me too long to spot it. That's all I can think of for now. I will continue playing and post if I have any more suggestions.:). I believe all the current development tools do it wrong, and the right place for a tool is outside the browser, as a custom shell around the main browser component. This is how I tend to work: I load up an app. I set up my credentials (by logging in or setting a particular cookie manually, for example).

I debug using Firebug, mainly using the DOM view, the console and the JavaScript REPL. Then I might change my credentials to see the page as a different user, for example. I clear the cache now and then, and I clear my cookies often. I also change things like cookie preferences and turn JavaScript on/off to see how my app behaves. I also work on multiple projects concurrently, so I frequently need to switch, meaning yet again to clear the browser state.

In other words, I need the browser as a clean slate. I frequently need to throw its state away, and I rarely if ever run pages as 'myself'. I'm a Chrome user, so for this reason I currently use Firefox as my dedicated debug browser. This means I can always throw away my browser state, and I can close Firefox when I'm done with work. Firefox is a resource hog on OS X, and will frequently sit consuming 5-10% CPU even when idle, so this is actually important. I almost never use Chrome for debugging, not just because its DOM view and console are both much worse than Firebug's, but because it's my browser.

(Yes, I know that Chrome supports per-window profiles, but Chrome just isn't good enough for debugging.) My ideal development tool would be a thin shell around a web browser component. It would be chock full of techy dev stuff, and it would not compromise the dev aspect in favour of user-friendliness; unlike today's browsers, everything could be provided natively by the tool instead of inserted awkwardly by 'extensions'. It would do away with user-facing features like browser extensions, fancy history and bookmarks. In other words, it would be a hard core, bare-bones development tool. This tool would support 'projects'; each project being is a browser window, and each browser window is logically compartmentalized, with its own cookie database, history, settings, etc., with the option to save certain things like cookies, so that I can 'bake' current browser state and recall it later.

The ideal solution would be for each window to be able to embed different browser engines; there is no particular technical reason why this should not work, although it would be a little more work to implement. I actually started writing an app like this for OS X that embeds WebKit. It was surprisingly simple, and I got a decent DOM inspector view and style editor working, but then my mind wandered off to work on something else. I may pick this project up again at some point.

Prism used to be kind of cool but Mozilla abandoned it. There also used to be more focus on being able to build arbitrary tools around Gecko but Mozilla abandoned them (except for specialized OSes?).

Gecko is my favorite layout engine and Mozilla makes my favorite browser environments. Firefox gets weirder and weirder sadly. The multiproject browser environment thing sounds really cool. Multifox does some of that but its interface strikes me as a bit awkward. Just so you know, Firefox does allow you to run multiple profiles simultaneously in different instances.

I do this all the time. Just 'firefox -a blark -P profile_name' (or -ProfileManager) and there you go. The Holiday Ost Rapidshare Download. Don't know if it will work on OS X though. It's also possible to preload plugins, config settings, and extensions so that you don't have to set them up each time.

Let me know if you'd like some pointers. This was a big part of my work at a previous job. It's small usability issues more than anything specifically missing. Some things off the top of my head: * The 'point to find in DOM' icon is tiny and squeezed in between other icons at the bottom of the page. It's one of the most important tools, imho, and it can't be tucked away like that. And it needs a keyboard shortcut to toggle it. * The 'point to find in DOM' is very flickery and just feels more shoddy than Firebug's.

Firebug uses a rectangular border, which I think makes more sense than a colour overlay which obscures the content. * The DOM tree view is gnarly; by which I meant that it's cramped, squeezed together, hard to edit and navigate, and just generally feels like one is fighting a jungle of vines and branches. It needs more spacing and more a consistent editing mode. Firebug's isn't great, either, but it's more spaceous. * The CSS style view is also pretty gnarly in Chrome. The hit area for the checkbox to enable/disable a property is tiny, for example, and the overstrike is black, whereas Firefox wisely grays out disabled items. Chrome uses these dividers which are completely unnecessary given the source information on the right.

* The action to add a property is to click somewhere inside the CSS view that is not text. Yes, to click. It makes no sense, norwhere in any user interface do you add stuff by clicking in empty space. Firefox more wisely uses double-click, even if that's not great either, but at least has some precedence in GUI history. * Chrome has no tools to add styles. Firefox has a right-click context menu for CSS properties allowing me to right-click somewhere and select 'New property' or 'Add rule'. * Chrome: The icons in the lower bar change depending on which tab (Element, Resources etc.) you're in.

Pretty confusing since some of the icons apply to the tab you're in, and some are always enabled (like the 'point to find in DOM' button). I could go on. But that's a start. In fact, to illustrate some of these points visually, here are two screenshots of Firebug () and Chrome (), each with the same height. Consider: * Firebug shows in this case all the CSS information I need for the element.

Chrome is information-poor in comparison. * Chrome has inserted a useless 'element.style' entry which is unnecessary unless you actually want to add style to the element; for inspection purposes it's superfluous. * Chrome also wastes a whole line for the 'computed style' part, which Firebug wisely tucks away in a tab. * Chrome wastes the whole lower line on the DOM path, which I personally never use. In Firebug it's part of the DOM view and doesn't affect the CSS view. Here's an improvement suggestion I'm surprised nobody has thought properly about. One thing I often need to debug is the flow between pages.

For example, in some web app I click a 'Login' link, get a login page where I edit stuff, then click 'Log in', then the server does a few redirects and finally gets me to the 'you're logged in' page. Now, Firebug and Chrome both have a 'persist' mode for the network view which allows one to see the sequence of pages being requested, but since it's a strict log and mixes different content it's very hard to read, and very hard to figure out the true flow of events from. Here is such an exchange:. To get it I had to select the 'Document' and 'Other' event types. But I have to spend 10x as much time analyzing this than if I simply go to Firefox and turn on the stupid but effective 'Live HTTP Headers' add-on and then copy everything into a text editor. The HAR is too cooked to give me a proper bird's eye view.

Truly what I wish for is some kind of graph that's page-oriented. Here is a very quick Illustrator mockup:. Obviously hovering/clicking on various elements would let you look at headers and what not.

The idea is really a persistent timeline with a certain history, and which presents a logical view of browser navigation. It's important here to distinguish between user actions and stuff done by the browser (redirection, AJAX); it's important to know when something contributed to a page render or was just one link in a chain of redirects. Again, I could go on, but I have better things to spend my evening on.:-). Webkit dev tools timeline in frame mode is bar none the most useful tool for tracking down performance issues. Looks like it's on your roadmap but it's far, far more useful in tracking down actual perf issues in large codebases than any other tool in any developer tools toolbox because it's cross-cutting and bottlenecks tend to be a combination of factors and the frame-sizing lets you find what's on the critical path when it's on the critical path. I use it 10 times for every one use of all other perf profiling tools (I consider network/pageload to be a different set of problems). I don't see it on the roadmap but the firefox console is SO terrible at printing objects.

In most apps I work on I'm shipping around 2kB+ JSON objects and the current console is absolutely worthless for these. Related, but I think there's room for improvement in object printing in general. I find myself not really caring about most fields in an object but I'd like a couple fields printed inline before expansion.

I like that the firebug console prints a few fields with the option to expand objects but would like to have control over which fields those are. FWIW, my preferred pretty printer is node's. I find CSS errors/warnings to be absolutely useless in both the firefox dev tools and opera's. Pretty much any modern site is using vendor prefixes and the result is hundreds or thousands of errors which makes the console fall over. Due to the above, I've been taking the approach of trying dev tools out again every time Aurora updates and then going back to using firebug and chromium after 15 minutes or so. I completely missed the jsterm addon despite following you on a couple channels.

It looks reasonable so I'll be giving it a go today. When you're doing your network cascade panel, please set it up to load HAR files.

You can get HARs from a variety of sources but there isn't (yet) a convenient way to view them locally. For the debugger, I don't know of an equivalent of webkit's source view cmd+o / cmd+shift+o, which are extremely useful. The cmd+p filtering is decent but most of the time I do actually know what file and function I'm looking for.

I also use the reformat button and break on caught/uncaught exceptions on a regular basis. Actually, now that I think about it, I use every single function except for the editing functionality on the chromium sources panel at least once a week. For the style editor, the side list of stylesheets isn't mousewheel scrollable on my machine (I'm on Aurora). I find dock right to be the most useful attached view for chrome tools. Screens (and particularly laptop screens) are wider than they are tall and dock right takes advantage of that.

Edit: For a larger feature, I would very much like the ability to edit code when the browser hits an exception and then continue execution using the new code. I've only seen this in smalltalk demos so I assume it's difficult but being able to flip a variable to tweak an if statement when stepping through the debugger saves the effort of getting back into the correct state from pageload. What drove me away from Firefox to begin with was the crashing, memory usage, and (lack of) speed. Mostly the crashing -- I was willing to put up with the other stuff. I'm a backend/systems developer. One thing that would be awesome for me would be a fully featured web debugging proxy ala Charles/Fiddler. This is where I spend most of my time debugging/testing.

I watched your video with the new webconsole (jsterm.v2). Looks pretty slick -- but I'd request code completion. It was hard to tell if you had it or not from the video. Another comment in this thread mentions you are working on Firebug AND dev tools? Firebug functionality must be part of Firefox by default.

I'm glad you asked! This is a good time for me to bring up something I wrote two years ago: I really wish browser makers would do this! Mozilla can lead the way. I am going to post it here for ease of reference: 1) I propose a simple mechanism to guarantee that a resource located at a certain URL is always the same.

Similar to how we have blabla, and the user agent warns us if the server's certificate is not trusted, we should have httpc:// blabla to indicate constant resources. Sites all over the world can download resources from httpc:// urls and store hashes to them in various formats, and your user agent can trust one or more of these authorities. When downloading, it would compare the hashes against the ones downloaded from these authorities, and if there is even a small deviation, it would give you a warning just like This must be done by the user agent. Right now we do have 'cache control' headers, but I am talking about the server making a promise to the world that a page is really truly static, and user agents having the ability to verify that. This is different from server-controlled caching. I can see this being used in app stores for the web (curating apps and various versions of apps, like Apple does) and also for secure logins.

I would like someone to make guarantees that my password is not being sent in the clear to the server that I am connected to. Right now, the web forces us to trust a remote server completely, when interacting with a website. For example, when I enter a password, I have no assurance that the server won't misuse it. (See ) This simple change would make possible a variety of applications that we haven't even thought of, besides these two. 2) The second proposal is to have iframes that are on top of everything else in the containing window, no matter what.

That would enable 3rd party logins (such as OAuth) do be done in the iframe, without worrying about clickjacking. The javascript inside the iframe should have a way of checking whether the iframe is of this type.

At most one such iframe can be shown in any given window. This would lead to much more pleasant interfaces, and once again, the user would receive the extra protection. Of course, this means that Flash and other plugins would have to play nice with this. We could implement this rather easily with a browser extension that causes a borderless window to appear (like Flash does) above the actual browser window.

Why not just sign the file with GPG or openssl or something? If you need to deal with clients that aren't aware of the mechanism, you could just put the GPG signature in a custom HTTP header.

If you need to use cloud hosting or the like, and you can't return custom headers, just put the signature in a file with the same name with.sig attached. In fact, I just downloaded a kernel tarball the other day, and kernel.org does exactly this [1].

I also found a few related articles and RFC's [2] [3] [4]. [1] [2] [3] [4]. One things I recently tried in firebug, and which seemed unnecessary hard: I tried to get a list of all the event handlers that fired. Yes, you can go in the source view, and there on 'trace events' or whatever it's called (why doesn't that work in the DOM view?), but when there's a page reload, tracing is off again. And as soon as there's a handler for mouse movement, you see nothing else in the flood of onmouse* events.

(Maybe there's an elegant solution to this problem already, but I didn't find any). In terms of devtools, here is my feedback/proposals: - the scratchpad is great but not usable enough. I would go somewhat in the same direction as firebug when you have the js command line in multi-line mode. The problems I see with the scratchpad is that it's yet another window to open and drag around and executing the code and getting the result aren't very easy things to do (ctrl+enter would be great). - of course, a very popular request is a better integration between the devtools and the IDE, and I think the fact that the debugger can be remotely accessed is great cause it will help immensely in this topic, however, I was thinking that perhaps, one simple thing that could help would be a way to drive the web page UI elements from the devtools, with some kind of selenium-like script. The goal would be to easily reach a certain point of the app when repeatedly debugging/developing that particular part.

Today, a webdev's workflow is mostly write in IDE ->F5 in browser ->click around ->debug/verify ->back to IDE ->etc. So the goal would be to speed up the 'click around' part, and I was thinking that firefox/devtools could expose something simple to easily script that part. - another thing I'd enjoy as a webdev is a way to mock/filter http requests and responses from the Net tab (currently being developed).

Indeed, when working on a web app, there are chances that the server-side code won't be ready at the same time as the client-side code. Another use case is when debugging and trying to find a fix for a problem in a remote platform (in production for instance). The idea would be to let developers specify, for a given request, a static file on disk to respond with instead of actually going to the server to get the true response. This way you could inject a new version of a file for testing, or you could mock a server response to work on the javascript part before the server-side is ready. Hope this helps. For debugging minified JS we tried to use source maps, but they were not supported (I have to say that Chrome claims to support it but it is working intermittently).

So our fallback today is to serve non-minified to developers (based on a cookie) and minified to the rest of the world. The drawback is that users may report JS exceptions with the line numbers which are different from what developers would see.

For mobile I need FF to let my webaps compete with native apps. Mozilla is changing the game on mobile with webapis to devices, you guys are the saviors! We have been waiting for the ability to write device interfacing webapps since 2008! Our team is on the way with an MVC framework that utilizes device webapis, see. But one critical thing is missing - Firefox needs to start as a service on device boot, and webapps should be able to register JS callbacks in this service. It does not need to include a rendering engine, but webapp should be able to spawn full browser. Without this we can't write proximity-based social apps, a bump-like app for business cards, network aware db sync engine, etc.

To continue this line of thinking, it is not always devices that you need your webapp to communicate with. Sometimes it is Android intents.

Like the intents defined by pebble watch service What would be cool is to have a generic interface to those intents in Javascript. I know it is Android-specific, and iOS will need another solution. The idea I want to throw on a table is to define any interactions with native code as Models in MVC. Our team is prototyping such for Pebble smart watch right now.

I am available for brainstorming if you want to take it further. Some random suggestions: (1) Developers do A LOT of style tweaks using the dev tools. In Chrome, this flow has gotten smoother and smoother.

For example, the little of feature of having key handlers to jog numeric style properties is huge as it allows you to look at your page and not the value you are changing. Along these lines, here are some things that would go beyond what is currently offered. - Allow me to easily get a diff of the styles that I have changed. I tweak a lot of styles and then I painfully bounce back and forth between my editor trying to make sure I have everything updated. When I forget something, it's lost. (Another angle on this would be to keep a history of the styles that were tweaked so I can get that back after refresh). - You have the beginnings of an awesome z-index debugger with the 3d-view.

Make it more interactive. I really want to see the page from the side with the z-index values somehow visible. Debugging z-index issues are a royal pain in the ass and you have a great opportunity to be awesome here. (2) Your network level debugging needs a lot of work to even reach par with WebKit browsers. There is a great opportunity here as well.

Even with the features that Chrome offers, I still resort to a debugging proxy for many tasks. Specifically, I use Charles for throttling to test timing on slow networks, replace network resources with a copy on disk (for in the field debugging), visibility into compression and a lot of cache related issues. In fact, tooling that gives visibility into caching behavior would be great. Another area lacking for browsers these days is debugging WebSocket traffic.

Chrome's WebSocket visibility doesn't give me the real time visibility I need for message-style traffic. (3) Performance visibility. I worked on the performance related tools in Chrome for a while. In fact, I landed the instrumentation that gave developers visibility into reflow/layout.

I want visibility into what is going on in the browser: Reflow, compositing, parsing, HTML tokenization, image decoding, message passing queues. I want to be able to see it all. (4) Expand Scratchpad. I basically want to be able to write a user script without ever having to install anything or open a file.

Let me open the scratch pad, write some code and check 'run this when example.com/ loads'. I have a lot of debugging-in-the-field issues where I end up jumping through hoops to get some custom script to run at startup. Ok, that's a quick 4 off the top of my head. Hope this helps. Hi Paul, I am not a FireFox dev tools user and I highly invested in Chrome devtools. I edit JavaScript code in browser all day. It's hard to not use a fully featured editor but I invested in it to make it better.

I submit bugs and sometimes fix small bugs there too. I will tell you what Chrome dev tools CANT do for HTML and CSS and ask you to implement them to attract more developers. Editing JavaScript code in browser: - Autocompletion (I know this is very hard) - Code block collapsing - A good theme API - Shortcut keys like CMD+/ for comments - Inline watchers for when developer stopped at breakpoint and look at watched value right next to it's position in code (Something like Visual Studio) 2. Editing CSS - Inline CSS reloading (Reloading CSS without refreshing) - Better autocomplete for values - Unminifying CSS 3. Firefox is my primary browser, but I use Chrome to do development, entirely because of the dev tools.

I'd really like to move my development back to Firefox. For me, I'm held back more by the UI rather than the features. I find the different, independent panels very confusing, and the popups (for eg.

XHR request info) drive me nuts. I'm sure there's a strong rationale for how it is, but it doesn't quite click for me. I've tried going back to Firebug where the UI is more my style, but for me, it's too slow (on my not new, but not old laptop). It often takes several seconds to launch the select element tool, and can lock up for a couple of seconds at a time.

The built-in tools are much faster, which is great. I'm just not accustomed to the UI, and have reservations about whether I can get into it or not. I would like to see the adoption, if not formally at least informally, of a javascript ux toolkit.

This toolkit would work across platforms - mobile, web, desktop. Ideally it would be modeled on qt. Maybe using dojo/Maqetta if this is possible or makes sense or Qooxdoo.

ZUL offered much promise but was never really developed imho. And now there are too many js toolkits out there -- too much choice! I can understand not wanting to favor one toolkit over another, but I think there is nothing wrong with informally adopting one -- and consolidation will happen eventually anyways. Web components may be a way forward here, but I would think Mozilla, with its emphasis on standards, could be a leader in uniting these elements. A RESTful stub, so I can run my ajaxy goodness without needing a web server up.

More importantly, have it run from standard definitions like jsonschema and URL mappings. Make the static version easy peasy config, and then let me extend the stub with JavaScript as it gets more complex. Front end dev is splitting from backend dev - and there is a world of people who would kill for an industry wide means to define easily the expected behaviour of rest API / media types and so be confident that when the outsourced devs returned their work integration would not be a bightmare - expect your stub to be part of many SLAs There are frameworks out there that do this (Jasmine) but if I wanted something, that's it Edit: was even less clear than it is now.

View event bindings. I'm often debugging pages I've never seen before and the only way I've found to know what's bound to what is to grep the js for live/bind/click/etc. Or replace the event library (usually jQuery) with one where I've inserted logging into the lowest-level event binding functionality.

This sucks a lot. Show me HTML source over time. If I use curl/Tamper Data I see what the server actually sent, if use View Source I see the source after JS has run, if I use Firebug I see the current DOM. I care about all of these. Give me one place to click through them with diffs. Include steps for the JS changes, and a copy of the JS stack at each change so I can see who did it. I'm not being pedantic.

Implement the same toolset, layout(UI), and keyboard shortcuts as Chrome/Safari. The underlying code would obviously be different, but as a developer one of my biggest problems with Firefox is having to do a mental context switch every time I have to debug something. Things that bother me is the dev tools defaulting to the top instead of bottom and having to click little buttons instead of fat tabs to choose what shows up in the console.

Make each its own tab. On the good side, the FF dev tools are a lot faster than Firebug was. That's much appreciated.

Chrome and Safari should do this as well. My point is that they are more similar to each other than Firefox is. Firstly, I love the new Devtools. I use Firefox as my main development browser because of it. First, I would like to request if the rules tab on inspector pane didn't change user value or unit. We can save that for the computed value tab.

For example I would like to inspect the hex color and not rgb. Second, I miss Firebug's colored overlay of padding, margin and border on inspect mode.

Chrome inspect didn't have it either. Third, is the performance measurement pane, like in Chrome.

Lastly, maybe an additional pane to edit/manipulate request header. Right now, I had to enable it every time I need to inspect the request header, and it couldn't be manipulated. After having to hunt in google chrome dev tools for memory leaks from a single page JavaScript app, memory dumps with a separate tool that can give you a really good insight into what hanging around would be great. I found that if you were doing snapshots of website states and the memory footprint was significant then the browser just wasnt able to handle displaying all of them at once. I know this is an issue kinda for chrome, but I figure Firefox might have a similar problem. And single page/MVC javascript apps are only going to get more demanding.

This comment may get lost. I have a lot of the same problems as others on this list. I love FF but use Chrome for developing, it is so much nicer. I don't get a lot of FireBug or whatever it is called. I use the DOM Inspector a lot (with the right click ->inspect this menu) But what I'd like is to be able to mark a set of CSS rules and see if they are ever run.

Put a breakpoint on them. Then browse around my website and see which are used and if any are superfluous. When taking over another website from another team, de-crufting the CSS is a pain. Right now, Web Developer Toolbar lets me live edit HTML in the browser.

I'd like the same feature, but instead of editing in the browser, I want to edit the actual html file. So, this would be some sort of 'live edit mode' where open a url to your local html file, and any edits you make to the file get applied in realtime (just like the Web Developer feature).

It would be nice to use my regular editor (and the true html source file) instead of a browser text field. I suppose support for CSS could work as well. I spend a lot of time needing to step through/understand someone else's pages/script, and would really like to see a way to immediately link between the HTML on* attributes and the functions that are invoked. I can at least get the function names through the DOM tree sub-tab, but I end up doing global finds to actually get the function being called - especially when someone has overloaded myFunc() with N different parameter options. Maybe there's a different way to do it, but I haven't found it yet. I tried searching, but I couldn’t find a single thing about accessibility on this page.

As someone who does not rely on accessibility tools, I have a lot of problems writing and debugging accessibility-compatible services, though I do try. I have a blog and a project that I am trying to make aide the experience for people with accessibility tools, but I still have no idea how it “renders” on their end. Nor do I know if I make a typo or write something that would not get validated by a test suite. Here are some of the measures I include that Firefox does not appear to assist with: 1. Rel='next' and rel='prev' It is actually incredibly sad that only Opera supports this—from what I can tell. Even Google seems to screw up the 'next' and 'prev' articles in search results for my blog. On a personal note, being able to browse through a catalogue of blog posts, forum posts, etc.

With just my Space bar, as Opera allows you, is amazing and something I am surprised others haven’t copied. If you want to try it, you can check out my blog linked in my profile on Opera; you can use it either from the pages with several posts displayed or on individual permapages. This kind of navigation creates an entirely new experience, and in some cases it also defeats a lot of tedium, such as when I am reading through fifty pages of forum posts—especially if it is a high-activity thread for, say, a live event where I have to keep up with new posts. WAI-ARIA In other words, the `role` attribute.

3..link-skip How, if at all, does my HTML/CSS actually work on accessibility software? Maybe my implementation is a completely rotten experience, but I wouldn’t know. Testing for colours Be it colour-blind people or people with poor vision. One functionality could be contrast inspection where a font `color` is compared to the colour of its background. Since you already have the requisite tools for modelling element-layering, this should be fairly trivial to automate as a test. Another functionality could flip the colour scheme to show what the site would look like with different types of colour-blindness.

There is much more to be done in accessibility, but I don’t really feel anything has changed in web-base accessibility in the last five or maybe ten years. I guess I wouldn’t know, because the tools available aren’t that great at the moment. Noscript testing +++++ I really love the continuous integration that Travis CI provides (when I can get it to work, which isn’t right now). I would love to be able to automate this process to the extent possible. Perhaps I could provide some kind of testing recipe that is either automated or provides the tools I need for a certain task—and only those tools—so I have, say, an accessibility-specific testing environment.