Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chrome Extension Helps Find Noisy Tabs

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the where-have-you-been-all-my-life dept.

108

mutetab writes "I recently wrote a Chrome extension called MuteTab that helps you narrow down which tab is making a sound by detecting which tabs contain plugins, HTML5 audio/video, and Java applets. It also gives you a right click menu that will mute tabs (via Javascript APIs when available, otherwise hiding them like FlashBlock does) and can automatically mute background tabs. Be sure to read the FAQ writeup to learn about some ways we can improve detecting which tab has sound and mute it." This really seems like stuff that should be a built in browser preference: like maybe an option to only allow audio out of the visible tab.

cancel ×

108 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That sounds useful (3, Funny)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946466)

Mostly I find the bells and whistles of new browsers to be useless... but a tool to mute the bells and whistles now that's actually something I'd like.

Re:That sounds useful (4, Interesting)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946704)

Of all the "new" things they add to the browsers, this is the one thing that would make all but the most annoying advertisers happy.

Another pair of must have features would be "Pause all scripts on background tabs" with sub options for types such as JavaScript, Flash, Audio and Video, and "throttle priority for background tabs" to limit the impact of for instance Javascript while you open a number of pages. These tabs have plenty of time to load while you read the others.

Re:That sounds useful (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947178)

I'd rather have an extension that asks me permission before playing a sound and/or any kind of animated crap. Animated crap is hard to detect, but sound? come on !

Last time I was on the french yellow pages. I left the browser open and came back a few hours later. The damn thing was crunching half of a core just displaying an ad ! Unbelievable.

Flashblock is of the essence my friends! Unfortunately with HTML5 flash is not the only way to animate crap on a page.

Re:That sounds useful (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947994)

flashblock?

no. just don't install flash as a browser plugin! ln -s /dev/null libflash_bullshit.so

you won't get any more flash ads, cookies or BS this way.

when I need to view youtube, I use 'youtube-dl'. nice side benefit: I get to keep a local copy and review that any time I want.

boggles me that people willingly install flash libs to their computers. come on techies, really now!

Re:That sounds useful (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948092)

There is a few range of things that I use flash for. Annoying things, but still.

Examples:
- Snippets of songs on amazon
- Google analytics reports
- I have no more example in mind.

All in all, I like to have flash *when I want it* and no flash the rest of the time.

Re:That sounds useful (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#36950376)

Riiiight, because I really want to download every. stupid. video. I may or may not want to see even once! With flash I can spend a couple of seconds previewing and if it is crap close the tab. By your method I hope you got grandfathered in on an unlimited ISP account which I hate to break the news to ya will be going the way of 8-tracks and bell bottoms.

As for TFA? Works in Comodo Dragon, thanks dude. I have several friends I keep up with through social sites and the damned little video or audio clips they have on their walls drove me......well up a wall! Although a nice feature you could add if you read this is to have a "default off" option that will remember your choice between sessions. Also have the icon change colors (I'd vote blue for muted, red for on) so that once can look at a glance and know whether or not it is engaged.

But thanks for the extension dude, very cool. It looks like after the Firefox "piss off business users and extension developers!" debacle all the cool extensions will end up being on chrome. Now if the Chromium guys can only give the NoScript guy the hooks he needs I'll have every extension I liked in FF plus cool ones like TFA!

Re:That sounds useful (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948672)

This extension has it backwards. Why allow everyone to blare noise at you, and then have to dig around and find who it is? The right thing to do is to deny everyone the ability to make noise, and only grant permission as needed.

Re:That sounds useful (1)

swilly (24960) | more than 2 years ago | (#36949918)

I would want it to allow the current tab sounds to play, but by default to disallow other tabs. This should be customizable, of course, since I want my Pandora chrome app to work in a background tab.

Now that I think about it, this should apply to video content as well as sounds. Nothing should autostart unless it is in the current tab. I have started several YouTube videos and had to quickly pause them after opening the link in a tab. It's pretty annoying.

Re:That sounds useful (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#36950948)

No, it really should be deny all, manually whitelist. What if you want to play audio from a website in the background? If it pauses when you switch tabs, that's no good. Or if you have more than one video embedded into one page. You don't want them to all start at once.

Re:That sounds useful (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#36949820)

I never get sounds out of Firefox. I never get shit starting up that I don't want. I tried Chrome and ripped it out within 15 minutes.

Is this the place? (5, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946476)

The submission is fair enough in its own way, but I can't say I'm overly impressed that it appears to be a direct advertisement for the submitter's product.

Re:Is this the place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946518)

I generally hate the constant cries of "slashvertisement" that tend to permeate every thread about any commercial product, but this one is kind of appalling. It's a random Chrome plugin, of no more interest than any other, but it gets front page why? There's no technical information, it's not groundbreaking in any way, it's just a random plugin. The fact that it was submitted by the author just makes it that much worse.

Re:Is this the place? (2, Interesting)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946978)

Agreed. While he's not charging for this extension and it is useful there are I'm sure hundreds of very useful Chrome extensions out there and /. is not the place to post all of them.

I'd also like to comment that I disagree with CmdrTaco (sorry!!) to add an option to only allow sound from the visible tab since I listened to internet radio and leave those running in a background tab.

Instead I would like there to be maybe a small speaker icon on the tab itself, perhaps on the right side next to the X, that would appear if there was sound coming from that tab. That I would find useful.

Re:Is this the place? (1)

pjfontillas (1743424) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948538)

I disagree with your disagreement! But not completely. We should have the option (keyword: option) to only allow sound from visible tabs. You most likely won't use it, but CmdrTaco and I will (on occasion).

However, I fully support your idea of small speaker icon on the tab itself. Someone should write that up, immediately. Maybe I will...

Re:Is this the place? (1)

pjfontillas (1743424) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948590)

Man, stupid double post. We should be able to remove them.

Re:Is this the place? (1)

pjfontillas (1743424) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948568)

I disagree with your disagreement! But not completely. There should be an option (keyword: option) to only allow sound from the visible tab. You most likely won't use it but CmdrTaco and I will.

However, I fully support your idea of a small speaker icon on the tab itself. Someone should write that up immediately! Maybe I will...

Re:Is this the place? (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947084)

Don't complain. Every now and then, slashdot tells us about a new OS/program/game/plugin. Almost always, this is advertisement in some way, although sometimes they only link to the review, instead of directly to the download site. But anyway, even if slashdot doesn't link, the download site is only 1 Google hit away.

At this very moment, my Slashdot frontpage reveals a "slashvertisement" for this Chrome plugin... but also for some Diablo Auction House, a computer for marriages in Texas, Galaxy Tab 10.1, iPad 2 and Ubuntu One Cloud Storage. And in addition, it negative (anti)-advertisements against Paypal, WinXP and Internet Explorer in 3 different articles. So?

I find this particular "slashvertisement" quite useful and interesting.

-- Sure, mod me down for flaming. Complaining about /. is ok, but complaining about the complainers isn't, right?

Re:Is this the place? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#36950968)

Uhhh...because unlike a slashvertisement this is a nice little free bit o' code that most of us would have never even thought of, much less thought of looking for, that helps make our days a little less sucky?

Anyone who has friends/family on social sites knows the "fun" of launching the page in the background only to have it start blaring some music because they posted a video or song to their wall. The only things I would change about this otherwise little snippet of goodness is have the ability to set background tabs to off by default, and have the icon change colors to indicate which state it is in. Blue for all off, green for background tabs off, red for all on.

But these are simply little nigglers which I'm sure will get added in the coming days. Thanks /. for posting this as it has already made my day a little nicer, and isn't that what programs should be for, making your day a little easier/nicer?

Re:Is this the place? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946524)

I like the change to direct advertisement instead of the shitty articles without news being presented as news.

or, you know, the articles with a title phrased as a question that can be answered with "no".

on topic, i gonna test this out, a tool to mute specific tabs sounds good. but a checkbox to only have the visible tab make noise would be stupid to me. since i often play music from youtube in one tab while reading slashdot for example.

Re:Is this the place? (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947400)

The submission is fair enough in its own way, but I can't say I'm overly impressed that it appears to be a direct advertisement for the submitter's product.

That, and Opera has had this feature for years.

Re:Is this the place? (1)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948712)

It is a chance to rant about annoying advertisements. We love to do that.

Re:Is this the place? (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 2 years ago | (#36949592)

At least it's something useful for a change, instead of "anonymous" cunts submitting their computerworld/itworld/whateverthefuckitis blogspam daily.

Re:Is this the place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36952878)

Yeah, screw this, give us more bitcoin articles!

Choice is good (4, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946498)

Blanket rules like only allowing sound from the visible tab are rather bad for things like internet radio, so being able to select tab by tab which should output sound and which shouldn't sounds great. It would be best if it were off by default so that you don't get spammed by audio ads.

Re:Choice is good (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946568)

Internet radio is a great example of an exception. Another is when a video has a commercial. I'll click to another tab for a bit to do other things but use the audio from that tab as a cue for when the commercial's over and I can get back to my show.

I can see how a lot of people might be confused/upset if audio went out by default without any clear and obvious way to change the default.

Re:Choice is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946598)

Let me suggest you another extension that solves your problem than muting the tabs: adblock.

Re:Choice is good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946818)

UI suggestion. Have the background of the tab show a "noise meter" behind the text. It's quick to look up and see the movement in a row of tabs, find it, and optionally kill it. And hopefully you don't have a lot of tabs making noise at once so the "visual noise" is at a minimum.

Re:Choice is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36947320)

I'll click to another tab for a bit to do other things but use the audio from that tab as a cue for when the commercial's over and I can get back to my show.

It would be even better if you could tell it to mute the tab until the ad is over.

Re:Choice is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36947448)

It would be even better if you could tell it to mute the tab until the ad is over.

Hell, the submitter mentions that they're having a somewhat difficult time even detecting whether something on the page is making ANY sound. Now you want them to make a judgment call on whether that sound is desirable or not?!?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're one of those people who always says "it really shouldn't be hard to do" despite having zero understanding of what's involved at all...

Re:Choice is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36952854)

I came up with the idea, that's the HARD part .. All YOU have to do is write some code!

Re:Choice is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36950782)

Wow, totally missing the point. He just said he uses the audio to know when the ad is over.

Defining choice [Re:Choice is good] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946650)

"What does it say about society that if you advocate legalizing almost everything you'll be labelled a conservative?"

Well, in our society, it doesn't say anything. You seem to be confusing conservatives with libertarians.
In our society if you want the government to make laws restricting what people can do with or to their own bodies, but not regulate corporations in any way, you're a conservative.
If you want the government to regulate what corporations do, but not make laws about what you can do with or to your own body, you're a liberal.
If you don't want the government to regulate anything, for any reason, you're a libertarian.

Re:Defining choice [Re:Choice is good] (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946758)

I'm not confusing libertarians with conservatives, I'm saying that other people do, hence the use of 'labelled'. And as your breakdown implies, it is usually liberals that do this, because they are just as bigoted as 'conservatives' in the end and only believe in freedom for some, not all. My sig is a critique of liberal hypocrisy.

Re:Defining choice [Re:Choice is good] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946808)

And as your breakdown implies, it is usually liberals that do this, because they are just as bigoted as 'conservatives' in the end and only believe in freedom for some, not all.

Except that corporations are not people and do not have any rights to "freedom" as a normal citizen has. So, no, thinking that corporations should rightfully be regulated does not make one "bigoted...and only believe in freedom for some".

Re:Defining choice [Re:Choice is good] (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947040)

Corporations are run by and employ people, and it is their freedom which is compromised. A person does not (or should not have to) give up their rights, citizenship, and personhood just because they own a business, and if many liberals had their way this is exactly what would happen. They advocate censoring business owners and their interests just because they don't like their political influence. Well, it's not really freedom of speech if that freedom suddenly evaporates for business owners.

Re:Defining choice [Re:Choice is good] (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948100)

Because businesses like BP and Union Carbide and Enron and Goldman Sachs and Lehman Bros and Countrywide and Roche and Wellpoint and Halliburton and the United Fruit Company and Ford (1914 ethical standards enforcement) and Wal-Mart and IBM (Nazi tech support etc.) are such great examples of corporate citizenship and exercising of their rights. Wouldn't want to infringe on their freedom to maim!

Re:Defining choice [Re:Choice is good] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36948612)

Corporate person-hood is a legal fiction, which is good for many manners of property adjudication. However a corporation can bring inordinate resources to bear on the political process. When the US was formed, the founding fathers had some serious reservations about corporate political power. "I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country" Thomas Jefferson.

Ideas and opinion should move forward more on the power of their logic, and less on the wealth of their purveyors. When elections come I am barraged with political ads that are corporate ideals astroturfed as a real grass roots movements. Many of the laws that are put forth seem like a well crafted Nigerian Email scam-promising freedoms, but actually robbing the voter of liberty.

Re:Defining choice [Re:Choice is good] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36947070)

My sig is a critique of liberal hypocrisy.

Your sig is poorly thought out and contradictory, then. Is it the labeling by "liberals", or by "society", that you are critiquing? Your sig says one, and your commentary says the other.

I don't actually think your statement "it is usually liberals that do this" is even correct-- it is primarily conservatives who make the loud and insistent claims that they are in favor of fewer laws and less restrictions on individuals-- even as they pass laws restricting freedom and increasing the size of government whenever they get into office.

Great for the "critique of liberal hypocrisy," but how about an equally-valid critique of conservative hypocrisy? Conservatives have done a superb job of propaganda, such that while removing freedoms from citizens wholesale, they nevertheless manage to emit piles of empty rhetoric about liberty.

Re:Defining choice [Re:Choice is good] (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947430)

Liberals are a subset of society. What they label society by extension also labels, if only in part. There is no contradiction.

Further, your reading comprehension is rather poor if you think the antecedent for "it is usually liberals that do this" is anything like "make the loud and insistent claims that they are in favor of fewer laws and less restrictions on individuals". I was saying that liberals claim libertarians are conservatives because they (libertarians) believe in the same freedoms that conservatives do, while denying the restrictions that conservatives also desire, which would be in line with 'liberalism' so it is invisible to liberals who (although rightly) think such a perspective is only natural.

I'm not particularly calling out conservatives because the very nature of conservatives, the definition of the word, is the resistance to change and the preservation of old order/status quo. It would be rather silly to criticize them for doing their stated goal. Yes, all the blather from the right about liberty and freedom seems to only apply to people who live like Ward and June Cleaver, but considering that they make no secret that their framework for liberty and freedom is 'traditional values' which is philosophically coherent and consistent with the goals implicit in a movement labelled 'conservative'.

Liberals are much more hypocritical because they are supposed to oppose status quo systems and advocate for freedom from tradition for its own sake. They do this right up until it becomes about freedom for business owners, and then everything comes to a screeching halt. For some reason business owners are not people, and their rights, property, and lives are to be subjected to nearly any whim of the majority by way of the whole power of the state. If they could they would silence them, rob from them, dictate to them everything they should do and not do, all because they have obviously forfeited their humanity by daring to contribute to the economy by running a business.

Conservatives are not libertarian [Re:Defining...] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36948176)

your reading comprehension is rather poor if you think the antecedent for "it is usually liberals that do this" is anything like "make the loud and insistent claims that they are in favor of fewer laws and less restrictions on individuals". I was saying that liberals claim libertarians are conservatives

And your reading comprehension is bizarre. I said that conservatives are the ones who make the loud and insistent claims that they-- conservatives-- are in favor of fewer laws and less restrictions on individuals. They are hypocrites when they say this, because that is very explicitly not what they do.

However, explicit hypocrisy-- saying one thing and doing another-- doesn't seem to be anything you have any interest in pointing out.

Conservatives are not libertarians. Conservatives like to borrow libertarian rhetoric, but have no interest in actual libertarian principles.

Re:Conservatives are not libertarian [Re:Defining. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36950878)

I love it when everybody starts insulting each other's ability to read. Shall we start calling each other retards next?

Re:Defining choice [Re:Choice is good] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36947328)

If you want the government to regulate what corporations do, but not make laws about what you can do with or to your own body, you're a liberal.

I wish that were so. In reality, the people commonly called liberals are the fiercest advocates of smoking bans.

Re:Choice is good (1)

plover (150551) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946820)

It's all about dependencies. What I'm browsing on one tab sometimes has a relationship to what's in another tab, but generally that's not true. I'll often have a dozen tabs or more open to different things going on. One may be shoutcast, one may be to a blog, etc. None of those needs to "mute" or "unmute" the others. There is no actual dependency between what I'm looking at and what I want to hear.

Since I run Adblock, Flashblock, and Noscript everywhere, I didn't actually realize that ads commonly played audio. I've kind of seen it happen on other people's browsers, but wasn't aware that it was a giant problem in the industry.

Re:Choice is good (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946972)

I for one would like to be prompted before audio can be played even from my active tab. An exception list for youtube/pandora/etc would of course be welcome.

Sometimes I need to have audio, but 99% of the time it adds little value.

I use flash blockers which gets rid of most of the bother, but as html5 takes off that will stop working.

Awesome (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946516)

I have always wished there was a right-click menu on tabs to mute them. Seems like your extension has to use a bit of a kludge to silence them (has to "scan" tabs to detect plugins/etc. You'd have to update it everytime something new comes along, correct? And can it really tell if it is making a sound, or only if it could make a sound?) Handling that in browser should be much easier. Off hand, does anyone know how difficult it would be to get something like this integrated into core Firefox/Chrome?

Opera does have an option to disable sound in webpages, but I'm not sure if it works on Flash or not. I don't think so.

Re:Awesome (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946560)

As an Opera user: It doesn't. But then, I have all flash off by default and I have to click a flash-less "play" button before the flash plugin even loads for that one plugin (and hence I don't get noisy ads at all because I never click the play button to even load them, just the one that plays the video/flash I actually WANT to see).

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36947006)

In about:flags you can set Chrome to only run plugins by clicking on them. Far better than using the mediocre FlashBlock extension.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36947024)

The Chrome dev's said they thought about adding an option like this. But without plugin author's support IE flash, they can't really do much since flash directly accesses the windows sound api's. This current plugin looks like it works by unloading the flash object, so if you were playing a game had the tab muted and went to another tab it would restart your game (at least as far as I can tell, haven't tested it)

Re:Awesome (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947748)

Hmmm. I wonder if you could get around that some way. Windows 7 offers per process volume control, and I assume Linux does as well (though fuck all if I know an easy way to do it, although granted I'm still using Ubuntu 10.04. And not an updated one. I know, I know. Its complicated). Can a process control the volume for a child process? If not, it should be able to. Also, flash definitely should add support for that. Doing it in HTML5 should be trivial (the Opera function I already mention should do it already, I imagine).

Sound? What sound? (1, Troll)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946642)

Apparently I'm the only person in the entire world who doesn't have their speakers turned on 24/7 because I never hear sounds.

Granted, I don't run Chrome, but regardless, every time I hear someone complaining about the sound from an ad on a web page I can't resist posing the rhetorical question, "You do realize you don't have to have your speakers turned on, don't you?"

This is another example of a solution looking for a problem.

Re:Sound? What sound? (2)

FooBarWidget (556006) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946740)

Yeah and all those people who are listening to music while browsing are out of their minds and are only imagining that they have a problem, right?

Re:Sound? What sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946842)

I fix this problem by muting the browser in Volume Mixer.

Re:Sound? What sound? (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946944)

It's comments like this that make me wish I had mod points today. So a virtual +1 \o/

Re:Sound? What sound? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946988)

Which falls over when one is listening music through something like Last.fm or Pandora....in their browser.

Re:Sound? What sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946780)

Yea I really don't get this. I leave my laptop volume up, but I have *all* UI sounds turned off, flashblock takes care of the web autoplay bullshit. I can't stand coworkers chatty laptops, I don't think my laptop makes a peep (that isn't intentional through headphones) ever, weeks, months.

Re:Sound? What sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946970)

And by turning your monitor off, you don't have to see obnoxious video advertisements, either.

BRILLIANT!

Re:Sound? What sound? (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947450)

That's what my desktop at work is like, but I listen to music on my laptop while surfing all the time.

But this isn't a problem there because I use ClickToFlash (a flash blocker for Safari) so nothing gets to try to play audio that I don't authorize first. I can't remember the last time I ran into a midi file or some other way that sound was played without using flash.

Re:Sound? What sound? (1)

tempest69 (572798) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947756)

Tough to notice Skype inbound calls otherwise.
Killing sound system-wide was fine twenty years ago as a reasonable solution.
But ads have been getting sneakier, where they delay before making their sales pitch. I have way too many browsers open to find it quickly.

Re:Sound? What sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36951162)

What about the pop-up on top...?

Re:Sound? What sound? (1)

tempest69 (572798) | more than 2 years ago | (#36953744)

it doesn't show when I'm watching a movie.

Nobody likes a voice-over while they surf porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36947860)

Really, it seems to be the only time that it is a problem. I don't care for ads during my personal time.

Solution to the wrong problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946652)

Frankly, the problem is that all sound should be arbitrated by the browser, through the plugin interface. I should be able to flag by browser to never make a sound unless I turn it on, without having to mute my whole machine.

Re:Solution to the wrong problem (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946686)

Sounds like you actually want a step further. You want your OS to block sound from certain apps, unless you give them permission. Which should be totally do-able.

Re:Solution to the wrong problem (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947784)

The problem with your proposal is that applications themselves act as mixers. If you block sound from an application, you block all sources of sound within that application. In order to keep Internet radio going in one tab while blocking ads in another, you have to put the control within the application.

Re:Solution to the wrong problem (1)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948764)

Given that all modern OSes abstract hardware access, you're right, this should be totally doable.

For what it's worth, Windows 7 lets you control sound volume on a per-application basis--even muting whole applications, if that be your wish. Doesn't help with tabbed applications like browsers, though, where you might want to let some tabs play by not others. A finer level of granularity would be useful here, built into the browser itself.

CHROME needs what I told SanityInAnarchy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946676)

An Opera-Like Feature: A "By Site Preferences" addon/option!

That way, you can GLOBALLY set all:

---

1.) Addons
2.) Plugins
3.) IFrames-Frames
4.) Cookies
5.) Javascript/JAVA usage

---

OFF... & then only turn it on for the sites you absolutely NEED it running on!

* This would not only COMPLIMENT Chrome/Chromium's "sandbox" features for SAFETY, but also enhance the speed of rendering of pages to boot (Double-Bonus)...

Yes - I do the above in Opera, & it makes a HUGE difference in speed, & yes, SECURITY TOO, of websites I visit...

(Face it: MOST SITES DON'T REALLY NEED THAT STUFF RUNNING (certainly NOT "all the time/indiscriminately") TO FUNCTION PROPERLY!)...

APK

P.S.=> Just a thought for those of you that are Chrome/Chromium fans (Opera man here personally/mostly though), & are coders - that is, IF such a feature/addon does not exist for Chrome/Chromium, already... I know SanityInAnarchy (a member here who I know codes & likes Chrome) does, but I am NOT sure if he caught that comment of mine to he... some "Food 4 Thought"

... apk

Re:CHROME needs what I told SanityInAnarchy (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946936)

Random Camel Case and UPPER CASE, unnecessary bold type, an asterisk that doesn't have a reference, homemade ordered lists, fake section breaks, section breaks around a singular coherent sentence, parenthetical expressions that are standing alone, nested parenthetical expressions, a post script in a text editable field, and two sets of initials, all in an anonymous post? I think you've just scored some kind of award for the least visually appealing, non-troll post on Slashdot.

Re:CHROME needs what I told SanityInAnarchy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36947682)

an asterisk that doesn't have a reference

I found that really funny for some odd reason. Classic APK style.

Re:CHROME needs what I told SanityInAnarchy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36947720)

Off topic on your part, you fail, pot calling the kettle black.

Re:CHROME needs what I told SanityInAnarchy (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947844)

homemade ordered lists

This could be because Slashdot's CSS for <ol> and <ul> elements was broken at the time of posting.

a post script in a text editable field

This is because the <aside> element of HTML5 [html5doctor.com] is not on Slashdot's element whitelist.

Chrome will never support some features like these (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946688)

Google's big-business is advertising. Anyone who works on an ad-blocking extension for Chrome will tell you that Google is very, _VERY_ slow to accept any sort of patches to WebKit that made ad-blocking more functional (currently an extension like NoScript for Firefox is practically impossible to implement in Chrome because Google will not patch, or accept patches to WebKit adding the required functionality). Anyone who is taking ads and hostile scripts seriously enough to warrant installing special software for it is using Firefox for two important reasons: Adblock Plus and NoScript.

Re:Chrome will never support some features like th (1)

Calos (2281322) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948534)

>> currently an extension like NoScript for Firefox is practically impossible to implement in Chrome

Not true - see NotScripts: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn [google.com]

Works very well.

I don't know of any ABP equivalents, there may not be any; I use Privoxy anyway, which is really a much more capable tool than ABP and does a lot more for the security and privacy conscious.

Missing the real story (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946748)

You're missing the real story.

The real story is that a cool new addon is available for chrome, not FF.

Firefox was made by its addons. FF is just a bootloader for adblock+, noscript, firebug, flashblock, xmarks, and others.

If new addon development is going to Chrome, then I inevitably also have to move to Chrome. FF was fun and worked great, but...

Is there an equivalent for FF? Has Chrome's addons finally caught up with FF? That is the real story.

Re:Missing the real story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946828)

Is there an equivalent for FF?

That should've been your first question, before the rhetoric and hyperbole about "the real story". The answer is 'yes', and it makes the rest of your comment redundant.

Re:Missing the real story (2)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946986)

Addons that do this have been available for Firefox for a long time.

Re:Missing the real story (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947472)

Addons that do this have been available for Firefox for a long time.

Well, don't keep me/us in suspense... "tools" "addons" start searching...

"silence tab" Could not find any matching addons
"silence" ditto
"tab mute" Obviously none of those four search results are related...
"detect sound" Could not find ... etc
"automute" ditto
"auto mute" two things, one plays internet radio, the other appears to be a RSS reader
"making a sound" Could not fine any ...
"tab sound" a whole pageful of results, mostly revolving around beeping when your web mail gets a mail and controlling web music players

Is this one of those things where "everybody knows" the project release name is "purple pineapple" so that's the only way to find it by searching?

Re:Missing the real story (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947646)

Dunno. I used an addon like this at some point, then stopped because I found better ways to deal with the problem. I don't recall what it was called at this point.

Version (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948266)

Addons that do this have been available for Firefox for a long time.

Is this one of those things where "everybody knows" the project release name is "purple pineapple" so that's the only way to find it by searching?

Or probably there must an absolutely awesome plugin doing exactly what you want, called "Mute Those Tab" and which supports all versions of Firefox between 2.x and 5.x
Sadly, the day before yesterday, Mozilla decided to bump up Firefox's version number from 6.x to 7.x, and by the time the plug-in author fixes this, Mozilla will have already bumped FF's version further (to 12.x !!!)

But you're still free to google around the web, until some obscure blog post explains how to hack the manifest.xml to have the plugin install onto all versions up until 99.x (= which is about next mont on Mozilla's time plan. About the same time when Microsoft makes a public announcement saying that they officially have started a workgroup tasked with considering the fact that maybe they will start committing to support modern standard and perhaps consider making Internet Explorer 11 (eta 2025) compliant with web standards such as HTML. Version 4).

~~~

Re:Missing the real story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36947634)

Care to link? I wasn't able to find any on amo. No answer on quora either [quora.com] .

Re:Missing the real story (1)

Reservoir Penguin (611789) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948798)

Too bad then that you post turns out to be knee-jerk bullshit, I keep dozens of tabs in several windows so when restring from save and quit I'm often faced with a horrifying sound from one of the tabs. I wish there were a plug-in :(

Re:Missing the real story (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948978)

Fwiw, I just use Flashblock for this now. It works fine.

Re:Missing the real story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36947322)

Has Chrome's addons finally caught up with FF?

Do you see multi-row tab bars in Chrome yet?

Re:Missing the real story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36947882)

Is it possible to block ads without loading them on chrome finally? In other words, is there a real adblock for chrome?

Re:Missing the real story (1)

jeti (105266) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948276)

The last time I looked, the Chrome extension API was simple and well documented but quite limited.
You can manipulate the current HTML page and add something (probably only buttons) to the toolbar.
Apart from that, it lacks the ability to extend the browser GUI in any way.

110 tabs open (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946770)

not sure where the sound is coming from: http://i.qkme.me/5p2h.jpg [i.qkme.me] (Futurama meme image, I swear)

Re:110 tabs open (1)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946888)

I saw that meme the other day and thought "someone should create an addon showing which tabs are making sound". Then this appears.

Just call me Paranoid Parrot.

Or not (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946874)

TFS:

maybe an option to only allow audio out of the visible tab.

I use pandora/grooveshark/whatever in a background tab to listen to music all the time; having only the current tab emit sound would defeat that. But the ability to mute tabs (or have them muted by default, and be able to unmute them?) sounds perfect to me. Or how about having a whitelist of sites allowed to emit sound (somebody quick, grab the name NoSound to be a sister extension to NoScript).

Using your teeth because you're handcuffed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36946966)

If Chrome would give us enough freedom to get a NoScript equivalent working, this hack wouldn't be required.

blocking all sound (1)

executioner (113014) | more than 2 years ago | (#36946990)

Blocking all sound in background tabs would work for some people (if technically illiterate) those of us that use internet streaming for music, listening to videos while doing other things not so much. I like the idea someone presented about showing in the tab which ones are providing sound in them, I would welcome something like this along with a utility to mute the sound in individual tabs. I'm starting to get tired of having to sort through scripts and code that I can change to fix issues created by someone else deciding that they know how to manage my system better then me. I have found issues with windows 7 that Microsoft decided that all my "broken" links (over their arbitrary number of 4) on my desktop to files on my thumb drives do not need to be on the desktop and deletes them with no warning. I would hate for Chrome or FF to follow in the trend of that one of the reasons I switched was the addons allowing me to make changes to the browser that benefit me but it should be my choice.not the company providing the software.

If there's one thing I hate ... (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947152)

... its the p0rn sounds that continue to emanate from my PC when the boss approaches and I switch to a work related tab.

Why does shit play in background tabs at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36947214)

Background tabs are hidden. There should be no video or audio or animation playing in them. This is especially annoying in Firefox where you can hide sets of tabs completely from view with Tab Groups (which is more like an extended bookmark functionality), but all those zombie tabs keep playing and gobbling memory and CPU. Limiting background animation to 1 fps and using the PageVisibility API are steps in the right direction, but they're not going far enough. Browsers should just freeze any tab that isn't visible.

Re:Why does shit play in background tabs at all? (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948074)

I like to play kakuro [kakuroconquest.com] while I watch (mostly listen to) the news in the morning. Muting all background tabs would make that more difficult. I would prefer having the option to mute all or some background tabs, or perhaps have a "whitelist" of sites allowed to make noise in the background.

I used to have this problem. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#36947270)

But between flashblock and adblock, I can't remember the last time this was an issue.

Sound prefs (1)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | more than 2 years ago | (#36948190)

This really seems like stuff that should be a built in browser preference: like maybe an option to only allow audio out of the visible tab.

^ This.

There's only a few sites I know I want sound from so that's video sites and a few music sites. So I'd like all sites muted unless I've white-listed them. I'm also fairly confident that 99.9% of other users feel the same. All those in agreement, shout, aye!

Ads that Pause (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36948544)

While on the subject, I've noticed a lot of video advertisements (that you might see before playing a TV clip or something) will now pause automatically when the tab becomes inactive or the browser is minimized.

My trick of opening the page, then tabbing to something else to read while their advertisement plays in the background, no longer works. :(

It should really be a law. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36950374)

No default play of audio or video without explicit opt-in. That should be a law.

100 youtube videos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36950914)

I frequently save sessions, when each tab has a flash video player things can get quite hilarious. The whole system freezes trying to deal with the flash then everything starts playing at the same time. LOL! Just 1 video can already be annoying if you can not find it.

Great extension, keep on the good work harder.

I have a similar firefox extension... (1)

davidshewitt (1552163) | more than 2 years ago | (#36952446)

... called NoScript. I would really like to see a NoScript for Chrome. Why hasn't one been created?

I've been looking for this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36954306)

...but in FF. I may have to finally switch, if Chrome can mirror FF's Panorama (Tab View) functionality as I am hopelessly addicted to having many, many tabs open at once, which is only palatable if I can group them and zoom out to see them all thumb-nailed.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>