Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla To Add Screenshot Sharing Feature To Firefox Test Pilot Program (softpedia.com)

An anonymous reader writes: [Softpedia reports:] "Mozilla plans to include a webpage screenshot sharing feature to Firefox as part of the Test Pilot program, a spokesperson confirmed to Softpedia. The new feature is called Page Shot, and will initially roll out on Firefox Test Pilot in late-Q3 of this year. The Firefox Test Pilot program allows users to test experimental Firefox features using a special add-on. Based on user feedback, those features will end up as built-in Firefox features, or self-standing add-ons." The pageshot.net website is now offline as Mozilla prepares to launch the add-on via Test Pilot, but Softpedia has the screenshots. You can view the screenshots here.

46 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Cool... I guess?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We've been able to share screenshots for almost 30 years now, this feature better have some neat use cases over traditional methods otherwise I'm sure this'll just be another bloat feature on an already pretty hefty browser.

    1. Re:Cool... I guess?? by Budgreen · · Score: 1

      The only neat part is how the govt can access it without your knowledge.

      --
      The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
    2. Re:Cool... I guess?? by swalve · · Score: 2, Informative

      How is this better than the prtscn button?

    3. Re:Cool... I guess?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...This apparently makes it a native browser feature where you can capture directly to a file with no intermediate steps. However I've been using the FireShot plugin for years and it works fine; I don't see why this needs to be built directly into the browser.

      GP here. I just use the native Snipping Tool in Win 7 and up. When I need to use a Mac, the OS has supported native screenshots for years. Even back in the XP glory days I used a third-party OS program which saved directly to disk.

      If a program can snip anything from the OS-level, why do we need it at the browser level? Can you elaborate on the day-to-day use that you get out of a browser-specific screenshotting plugin?

    4. Re:Cool... I guess?? by GrumpyNope · · Score: 1

      1) It looks like it can automatically upload the screenshot so you can easily share it and 2) it may be possible to capture an entire webpage, something that's not possible with an external tool.

    5. Re:Cool... I guess?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      when you accidently bump a key when you are at a porn site, it will send a screen shot to your boss and everyone in your "social group"
      awesome! NOT

    6. Re:Cool... I guess?? by Psicopatico · · Score: 1

      That's because you're using an inferior operating system.
      In my case, pressing the printscreen key opens a dialog kindly asking where do I want to save my screenshot.
      Difficult, huh?

      --
      Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
    7. Re:Cool... I guess?? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure there are other neat use cases of interest to the phishing community.

    8. Re:Cool... I guess?? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      How is this better than the prtscn button?

      It is easier to remotely exploit via JavaScript.

  2. Uh huh by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hey look! More features no one asked for!! Is Mozilla now in "throw a ton of shit at the wall and see what sticks" mode?

    1. Re:Uh huh by HBI · · Score: 2

      Ivory tower syndrome. They don't write for users, they write for themselves.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re:Uh huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You bastard!

    3. Re:Uh huh by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Hey look! More features no one asked for!! Is Mozilla now in "throw a ton of shit at the wall and see what sticks" mode?

      From TFA: https://pageshot.net/

      Softpedia: What's Page Shot's origin story?
      Ian Bicking: We think a lot about sharing, linking and saving information on the web.

      Perhaps they should spend more time thinking about displaying information from the web...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:Uh huh by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      We think a lot about sharing, linking and saving information on the web.

      You mean... you think about the three things the web was explicitly designed to do, and has been doing since its inception?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Uh huh by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      It was asked for by all those Windows users and Indian "developers" that always send screenshots of system logs or XML data instead of that extremely hard to use format called text.

    6. Re:Uh huh by allo · · Score: 1

      Which would be a good thing, if they would write for their own usage. Maybe one person is really into "i always wanted a nice screenshot function", but not all of mozillas devs. So there must be more a "We like to build this feature as an interesting challenge" thing than a "i always wanted it!" thing.

  3. WTF?!?!?!? by williamyf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    when did Flower+Shift+3/4 or Shift/CTRL/ALT+PrtSCR became such a difficult task that we need a "Feature" in the Browser for ScreenShots?!?!?!?

    Mozila, bloat with gusto!

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    1. Re:WTF?!?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah, but you neglect the part where a new version of systemd breaks the normal OS screenshot feature.

      Glad for Firefox's screenshot mode then, you will be!

    2. Re:WTF?!?!?!? by scdeimos · · Score: 2

      In case you weren't aware there have been Page Shot-style 3rd party add-ons for many years. The #1 difference between them and PrintScreen/etc is that the add-ons can screen shot the entire page in one go, as opposed to only the visible portion using PrintScreen/etc.

    3. Re:WTF?!?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      in recent versions of Firefox with no extra addons:
      press Shift+F2 to bring up Developer Toolbar, then type in
      screenshot --fullpage --clipboard

    4. Re:WTF?!?!?!? by williamyf · · Score: 1

      You mean like Print to PDF does in mac?

      (And I guess there is some sort of out of the box equivalent in Windows 10)

      --
      *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    5. Re: WTF?!?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Infinite scroll is only a problem for screenshots if you don't use compression. You can pack an infinitely large webpage into a small-ish jpeg because HTML, due to its repetitiveness and general lack of useful information, can be compressed a lot.

      This is actually a problem NASA had to deal with when they pointed the Hubble into deep space. Since the Universe is infinite, they were going through disks like mad and couldn't get anything done.

      For a while they focused only on taking pictures of nebulas, stars and gas giants, because gases can be compressed more than solids, liquids and, of course, infinity, because they are less dense.

      Obviously now we have better compression technology that can condense the vast, cold, dark, uncaring infinity of the cosmos into black pixels, which take much less room. Of course you lose SOME detail, but I hear that the Unicorns aren't that amazing anyway.

    6. Re: WTF?!?!?!? by GrumpyNope · · Score: 1

      Most extensions that can capture an entire page usually do not trigger infinite scroll.

    7. Re:WTF?!?!?!? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Because now you can take sacreenshots of information on the screen that you otherwise would not be able to see because it is over a secure connection.
      e.g. You want to know what a terrorist or child molester has on his screen, but they use a secure connection. Now you just connect to the browser via an ad that runs on a separate tab and take a screenshot that you send to you.

      This will only be used for these reasons and only after a court has given the order. It will not be possible to abuse this in any way.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    8. Re:WTF?!?!?!? by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      No, I don't. Print to PDF (or any other printing) will usually be completely different than what you see on-screen due to CSS styles.

  4. Wow! That's awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's next for Mozilla? How about a BUILT-IN notepad feature, so I can take handy notes?

    or a a Basic Calculator? for math numbers? what i really need is a calculator inside my calculator

    Coming soon:

    Mozilla BUILT-IN Clock

    1. Re:Wow! That's awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It really needs the clock. I'm serious. You know how much effort it takes to look around outside the browser to find the time? I don't have time for the time.

    2. Re:Wow! That's awesome! by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      That would only be useful if it secretly added code to call home.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  5. Yet another unneeded feature! by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is another unneeded feature that is to be implemented when resources should be focused on the core purpose of the application. It is a web browser before it is anything else and, in my opinion, should get back to just being this. I don't want any one application to have everything in the kitchen sink as long as I can run multiple applications.

    --
    .
    Landfill Mining Co.
    Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    1. Re:Yet another unneeded feature! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      Yeah it is a web browser, and one of the oldest job of a web browser is to turn image files and markup into a visual representation. And if you want to somehow capture this visual representation as an image, the best way to do it is through the browser, since the broswer is the authority on how the pages are being rendered.

      Previously you had to download an add-on to do this, which is a bit of a pain, and something the browser should support natively, if for no other reason than it is trivially easy for the browser to simply provide the data it already has.

      No the browser shouldn't do everything. It should only do things that are browser related. This is browser related.

    2. Re:Yet another unneeded feature! by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

      Yeah it is a web browser, and one of the oldest job of a web browser is to turn image files and markup into a visual representation. And if you want to somehow capture this visual representation as an image, the best way to do it is through the browser, since the broswer is the authority on how the pages are being rendered. Previously you had to download an add-on to do this, which is a bit of a pain, and something the browser should support natively, if for no other reason than it is trivially easy for the browser to simply provide the data it already has. No the browser shouldn't do everything. It should only do things that are browser related. This is browser related.

      The article sure seems to describe what simply is a cropping-capable screen capture tool tied to a cloud-based, social web back-end. I believe this is another damn data grab and one disguised by a so-called needed feature. Even if not a grab per se, it is one more way to get the user-base locked into cloud-dependent services and applications. I'm certain that the mainstream user doesn't need or want this and that the user isn't taking and indexing screen grabs. If this was capable of dumping the entire page as rendered to something like a single PDF or image file, it might be useful since, as you've suggested, the browser would be best to do this. It seems to not do this, so why even add the feature?

      Why add the PageShot feature to the browser when the OS already allows the user to easily capture what's on the screen and has an image editor? A side from the OS, countless add-on apps are available for installing that will grabbing screen captures all day long through the click-drag-and-highlight model that will do this regardless of what is running or displayed? While I am not a big fan of the extension model mostly because people attempt to make the browser do too much, the browser's core functionality should be supplemented this way to keep the application's file space and resource footprint as small as possible. It also keeps the browser's dev team focused on the core functionality. Let third parties cater to niches.

      I have gotten by just fine in Windows with PRNT-SCRN and ALT-PRINT-SCRN. For other OSs, its just another key combo.

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    3. Re:Yet another unneeded feature! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      The article sure seems to describe what simply is a cropping-capable screen capture tool tied to a cloud-based, social web back-end.

      Yeah the description and animation of how to use it from the article look really stupid. I hope that's not how this feature it will actually end up. But that doesn't mean the good version of this feature shouldn't be added.

      Why add the PageShot feature to the browser when the OS already allows the user to easily capture what's on the screen and has an image editor?

      Because the browser is aware of the "canvas" contents of the rendered web page, and the OS only knows the "viewport" contents. This means that if the website contents are larger than the browser window, you only get a partial screenshot. Sure you scroll around to different areas of the page, take screen shots, and stitch them together using a photo editor, but that's time consuming and not really feasible if the web page isn't static.

      While I am not a big fan of the extension model mostly because people attempt to make the browser do too much, the browser's core functionality should be supplemented this way to keep the application's file space and resource footprint as small as possible. It also keeps the browser's dev team focused on the core functionality. Let third parties cater to niches.

      I agree with the goal of keeping the footprint small. My point is that the ability to simply dump the canvas contents to an image file doesn't really add to the foot print. In fact downloading an extension to do this is probably a much bigger footprint than if they just added it to the core browser. It's such a simple feature, like "save page as html" it could be "save page as image".

    4. Re:Yet another unneeded feature! by Dagger2 · · Score: 1

      The actual screenshot functionality is already there: just do shift+F2 > "screenshot [--fullpage] filename", or "screenshot --clipboard".

      In fact I just checked the syntax for it and "--imgur" is also an available argument (which is great if you're okay with all your screenshots ending up on imgur).

    5. Re:Yet another unneeded feature! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      oh crap! I didn't know about that! Thanks!

  6. Mozilla's new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Copy everything Chrome/Canary does.

  7. breaking news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In the next major release, Mozilla is going to add a full version of emacs to Firefox.

    After that, systemd will be ported to emacs.

    Then emacs will be rewritten on top of systemd.

    The Systemd will be ported to ECMAscript running in Firefox's javascript.

    Emacs will be recompiled to work in systemd.

    Finally, Firefox will be rewritten in elisp on systemd on ECMAscript on firefox on emacs on systemd on emacs on the next older version of Firefox.

    This will exhaust the the universe's available entropy pool, and the heat death of the universe will arrive billions of years prematurely. (But not without a collective sigh of relief).

  8. Priorities please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My biggest concern with Mozilla is its high CPU and memory footprint. Even backgrounded on supposedly static pages it chews up CPU. People have been complaining about this for years, but Mozilla has continue to ignore it.... Instead they rip out bloatware A (their "Hello" video conferencing) and replace it with bloatware B (Screen Capture).

    But there area already screen capture add-ons, just like there were video conferencing add-ons. Mozilla, What the fuck do you think you are doing?

  9. Browser printing is pretty erratic by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I presume this would use the browser engine to render the screenshot giving you WYSIWYG screengrabs.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  10. Wonderful excuse for idiots to go nuts on Mozilla. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's like nobody around here cares about anything Mozilla does except whatever could potentially piss them off. Oh no! An experiment that some dude whipped up that won't ever be in Firefox proper! Time to get the pitchforks out and trot out the usual lame lines about how Firefox shouldn't dare to do anything that isn't already being done (fixing the browser, focusing on my personal browsing workflow, etc).

    And no, I won't bother pointing out all the nifty stuff they're doing, because it's pointless. You'll all just obsess over how it's useless, awful, etc, because it's by Mozilla.

  11. Idiotic by ElectricPrism · · Score: 1

    Once again Mozilla adds features it will later ax. All that we want is Servo and for the whole thing to run fast. Mozilla is lost. They abandon Thunderbird and create all these moronic features like Hello and even fail to implement Firefox Sync in a sane way until v2.

  12. Said before, saying again... by Rexdude · · Score: 1

    Make the switch to Palemoon. Fully customizable as Firefox once was before they started copying Chrome, and they're not getting rid of XUL either, offered a 64-bit Windows build long before FF, plus it is kept secure and up to date, and has an Android version that syncs with the desktop one. Firefox meanwhile keeps playing around with the UI and adding unnecessary bloat that would be better served as optional extensions for those who want them.

    --
    "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
  13. Can't Please Everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Go for any "lightweight" browser then people will find out they still need lots of stuff it can't do and start to file feature requests, then it becomes the next bloated shit again.

  14. second coming.. by e432776 · · Score: 1

    ...of pocket et al. Another feature nobody asked for, to solve a problem nobody was having.

  15. Why by CimmerianX · · Score: 1

    I'm perplexed as to why this would need to be a browser feature?

    Coming soon.... Firefox will run mysqldump with a click of a button.

  16. Useless without OCR by xtronics · · Score: 1

    In the Linux world, one can use ksnapshot to grab anything - including graphical text - intended to copy protected - and automatically send it to OCR - and have the text ready to copy and paste..

    Without OCR the feature is pretty worthless..

    There is no need for firefox to do any of this.. perhaps they should concentrate on providing a way to pause scripts on a tab basis when not viewed? Or better ways to identify tabs that are slowing things down?

  17. Re:"Screenshot sharing" is too narrow by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    Apparently there is already a screenshot feature described later on in this thread.