91–100 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://blog.bahraniapps.com/gifcam/ https://www.cockos.com/licecap/ i don't mean to be snaky, but c'mon: https://www.google.com/search?q=gif+recorder
I think the spirit of the question was "how best to do it from the gazillion options that are out there"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://blog.bahraniapps.com/gifcam/ https://www.cockos.com/licecap/ i don't mean to be snaky, but c'mon: https://www.google.com/search?q=gif+recorder
I think the spirit of the question was "how best to do it from the gazillion options that are out there"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the spirit of the question was "how best to do it from the gazillion options that are out there"
there aren't a gazillion options, though; it's more like 5.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All 3rd party vendors have to include code for many features, websites, browsers and devices. They will always contain unused code. GA does a lot and it's doubtful you're using much of it.
They could at least gzip the damn thing or whatever their own pagespeed tool says is wrong with every asset loaded from Google
I like this, and it's addictive ;) Any way to automatically generate output that consists of the 100% essential code subset? As suspected: a typical medium.com page contains approx 75% extra code. Most egregious offenders seem to be content loader scripts like embedly, fonts, unity, youtube, etc. On the other hand, besides net load performance, I'm not really worrying about the "coverage" metric. Compiling unreal eng…
Interesting tool, but even more interesting results. I just tried it on a simple, one-page website I built recently and there is not a single line of _code_ that's unused, yet it's still showing me 182 lines unused. Things it seems to consider unused: `style` tags, if your CSS rule is on more than one line - the lines for the selector and closing tag. There should be 0 unused lines since there are 0 unused rules, and…
I believe in your case, these bytes are all whitespace. Here's a basic comparison of two pages where all rules are used: http://imgur.com/ZtfNFmo On the left, we have typical whitespace; On the right: no extra whitespace between style tags and rules. You can see we went from 15 unused bytes to 0.
To be extra clear about this we could somehow indicate these bytes are "unused whitespace" bytes. The implication is a little different in that case, mostly just to use a minifier.
(I work on these tools)
How do I exclude "chrome-extension://" and "extensions::" from the list? I can't do anything with them anyway, so it's just clutter.
Is there an easy way to filter out extensions from the Coverage tab, besides opening it in incognito mode?
_Edited_
A single page solution for a site wide issue.
The Coverage panel in Chrome 59 is the debut, but it's gotten a lot of improvements since then. In Chrome Beta (or you can always look in Canary), the data is reported live as things happen, and indeed results do aggregate across different page navigations. Which is what you would expect.
Chrome Dev tools, the first reason why I started using Chrome. I wonder if HN has any better alternatives to suggest? I'm curious to see what I could be missing on!
Edge will probably get time travel debugging first, allowing you to rewind and inspect after something happens. Way better than adding debugger or console.log() everywhere.