FF 50.0.1 on Windows 10, resurrection of the "invisible" button for a click-response

I am 99% Windows-7.  I have a pair of Windows 10 systems in my den with security cameras, and are used by grand kids 
when visiting.

One of the kids "discovered" some ransom-ware (phony) Malware with Firefox.

In my playing "Super sleuth", I wanted my normal bookmarks, so I performed the Firefox Sync on that WIndows 10 system.

I was notified about the message sent to my Firefox account.
Instead of me running into the other room and my Thunderbird on Windows-7, I just logged into Webmail.

The message was indeed there, but NO BUTTON on the page!

.....so I went to the other system  and verified that the Thunderbird message indeed has the button, and Yes!
I went back to the Windows 10 webmail, and passed the mouse over the invisible button and clicked it.
Works fine.

I am still unsure if I am an unwilling subject of some humor, or am I nuts?
.....so I go back to the Windows-7 system and do Webmail!
No button is visible!

Carl
0
king
1/11/2017 2:04:06 AM
mozilla.support.firefox 23577 articles. 4 followers. Post Follow

13 Replies
50 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 43

On 1/10/2017 9:04 PM, king daddy 2 wrote:
> I am 99% Windows-7.  I have a pair of Windows 10 systems in my den with
> security cameras, and are used by grand kids when visiting.
>
> One of the kids "discovered" some ransom-ware (phony) Malware with Firefox.
>
> In my playing "Super sleuth", I wanted my normal bookmarks, so I performed
> the Firefox Sync on that WIndows 10 system.
>
> I was notified about the message sent to my Firefox account.
> Instead of me running into the other room and my Thunderbird on Windows-7,
> I just logged into Webmail.
>
> The message was indeed there, but NO BUTTON on the page!
>
> ....so I went to the other system  and verified that the Thunderbird
> message indeed has the button, and Yes!
> I went back to the Windows 10 webmail, and passed the mouse over the
> invisible button and clicked it.
> Works fine.
>
> I am still unsure if I am an unwilling subject of some humor, or am I nuts?
> ....so I go back to the Windows-7 system and do Webmail!
> No button is visible!
>
> Carl

First thought, since the difference is between web-mail and 'normal' mail, 
is that the web-mail host is 'protecting you' and filtering out the button 
somehow. Does your web-mail provider claim to be doing filtering? Can you 
look at the page source and see if anything is amiss? Second thought is 
that some bad formatting in the message itself is causing a rendering 
error. Third thought is that some Firefox add-on is filtering some bit of 
the page -- I find NoScipt and AdBlockPlus doing that sometimes.
0
John
1/11/2017 6:47:04 PM
On 1/11/2017 1:47 PM, John McGaw wrote:
> On 1/10/2017 9:04 PM, king daddy 2 wrote:
>> I am 99% Windows-7.  I have a pair of Windows 10 systems in my den with
>> security cameras, and are used by grand kids when visiting.
>>
>> One of the kids "discovered" some ransom-ware (phony) Malware with Firefox.
>>
>> In my playing "Super sleuth", I wanted my normal bookmarks, so I performed
>> the Firefox Sync on that WIndows 10 system.
>>
>> I was notified about the message sent to my Firefox account.
>> Instead of me running into the other room and my Thunderbird on Windows-7,
>> I just logged into Webmail.
>>
>> The message was indeed there, but NO BUTTON on the page!
>>
>> ....so I went to the other system  and verified that the Thunderbird
>> message indeed has the button, and Yes!
>> I went back to the Windows 10 webmail, and passed the mouse over the
>> invisible button and clicked it.
>> Works fine.
>>
>> I am still unsure if I am an unwilling subject of some humor, or am I nuts?
>> ....so I go back to the Windows-7 system and do Webmail!
>> No button is visible!
>>
>> Carl
>
> First thought, since the difference is between web-mail and 'normal' mail, is that the web-mail host is 'protecting 
> you' and filtering out the button somehow. Does your web-mail provider claim to be doing filtering? Can you look at 
> the page source and see if anything is amiss? Second thought is that some bad formatting in the message itself is 
> causing a rendering error. Third thought is that some Firefox add-on is filtering some bit of the page -- I find 
> NoScipt and AdBlockPlus doing that sometimes.
The problem does not exist when I use Internet Explorer or Chrome.
The email is not the only situation where it exist(ed) historically.

It has always been (for several years) a Firefox problem, quite often when shopping online or going into financial 
sites.  Many times when it happened to me, I would copy/paste the url from FF and use Internet Explorer to complete my 
task.  It is as old as IE-8.

My bank and others used to NOT support Firefox at all!  This issue was the only specific reason I saw mentioned.

I am not the one discovering it.   I got my sanity back when I discovered others were complaining about it in news-groups.

Carl
0
king
1/11/2017 7:16:06 PM
On 1/11/2017 2:16 PM, king daddy 2 wrote:
> On 1/11/2017 1:47 PM, John McGaw wrote:
>> On 1/10/2017 9:04 PM, king daddy 2 wrote:
>>> I am 99% Windows-7.  I have a pair of Windows 10 systems in my den with
>>> security cameras, and are used by grand kids when visiting.
>>>
>>> One of the kids "discovered" some ransom-ware (phony) Malware with Firefox.
>>>
>>> In my playing "Super sleuth", I wanted my normal bookmarks, so I performed
>>> the Firefox Sync on that WIndows 10 system.
>>>
>>> I was notified about the message sent to my Firefox account.
>>> Instead of me running into the other room and my Thunderbird on Windows-7,
>>> I just logged into Webmail.
>>>
>>> The message was indeed there, but NO BUTTON on the page!
>>>
>>> ....so I went to the other system  and verified that the Thunderbird
>>> message indeed has the button, and Yes!
>>> I went back to the Windows 10 webmail, and passed the mouse over the
>>> invisible button and clicked it.
>>> Works fine.
>>>
>>> I am still unsure if I am an unwilling subject of some humor, or am I nuts?
>>> ....so I go back to the Windows-7 system and do Webmail!
>>> No button is visible!
>>>
>>> Carl
>>
>> First thought, since the difference is between web-mail and 'normal' mail, is that the web-mail host is 'protecting 
>> you' and filtering out the button somehow. Does your web-mail provider claim to be doing filtering? Can you look at 
>> the page source and see if anything is amiss? Second thought is that some bad formatting in the message itself is 
>> causing a rendering error. Third thought is that some Firefox add-on is filtering some bit of the page -- I find 
>> NoScipt and AdBlockPlus doing that sometimes.
> The problem does not exist when I use Internet Explorer or Chrome.
> The email is not the only situation where it exist(ed) historically.
>
> It has always been (for several years) a Firefox problem, quite often when shopping online or going into financial 
> sites.  Many times when it happened to me, I would copy/paste the url from FF and use Internet Explorer to complete my 
> task.  It is as old as IE-8.
>
> My bank and others used to NOT support Firefox at all!  This issue was the only specific reason I saw mentioned.
>
> I am not the one discovering it.   I got my sanity back when I discovered others were complaining about it in 
> news-groups.
>
> Carl


Just for grins, and I can reproduce this at will, now.
    I think I know what is the cause:
         ancient page html... using tag tbody
Here is the source for the table row that has the button:

           <tr height="50">   <td align="center" valign="top">     <table
               border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%"
               width="100%" id="email-button" style=""> <tbody>
                 <tr style="page-break-before: always;">         <td
                     align="center" valign="middle" id="button-content"
                     style="font-family: sans-serif;font-weight: normal;text-align: center;margin: 0;color: 
rgb(255,255,255);font-size: 20.0px;line-height: 100.0%;">
                       <a
href="https://accounts.firefox.com/complete_signin?code=573aa224ec46ba9bfde65d8250f6c6d3&amp;uid=b5a7718569a1417a9c419909ea2d9f17&amp;service=sync&amp;resume=eyJlbWFpbCI6ImNsYWNrZXkzQGVhcnRobGluay5uZXQiLCJlbnRyeXBvaW50IjoicHJlZmVyZW5jZXMiLCJmbG93QmVnaW4iOjE0ODQwOTg0MzY0MjgsImZsb3dJZCI6ImViOGFiMzU5ZTI0YmQwZmJjZDY5MjAxZGJiNDdjODMyNzE5OTMxYzZmN2ZlMWVkZTQ4NmIxZTVhMjVkMTMzYjQiLCJyZXNldFBhc3N3b3JkQ29uZmlybSI6dHJ1ZSwidW5pcXVlVXNlcklkIjoiNTFkYzdhYjMtNWIwOS00NDBjLWFjZDktODk2YzM5MzVmN2FiIiwidXRtQ2FtcGFpZ24iOm51bGwsInV0bUNvbnRlbnQiOm51bGwsInV0bU1lZGl1bSI6bnVsbCwidXRtU291cmNlIjpudWxsLCJ1dG1UZXJtIjpudWxsfQ%3D%3D&amp;utm_source=email&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=fx-new-signin&amp;utm_content=fx-confirm-signin"
                       id="button-link"
                       style="font-family: sans-serif;color: rgb(255,255,255);display: block;padding: 
15.0px;text-decoration: none;width: 280.0px;"
                       rel="nofollow">Confirm sign-in</a>
                   </td>       </tr> </tbody></table>   </td> </tr>


0
king
1/11/2017 9:13:18 PM
On 1/11/2017 4:13 PM, king daddy 2 wrote:
> On 1/11/2017 2:16 PM, king daddy 2 wrote:
>> On 1/11/2017 1:47 PM, John McGaw wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2017 9:04 PM, king daddy 2 wrote:

snip...
>
> Just for grins, and I can reproduce this at will, now.
>    I think I know what is the cause:
>         ancient page html... using tag tbody
> Here is the source for the table row that has the button:
>
>           <tr height="50">   <td align="center" valign="top">     <table
>               border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%"
>               width="100%" id="email-button" style=""> <tbody>
>                 <tr style="page-break-before: always;">         <td
>                     align="center" valign="middle" id="button-content"
>                     style="font-family: sans-serif;font-weight:
> normal;text-align: center;margin: 0;color: rgb(255,255,255);font-size:
> 20.0px;line-height: 100.0%;">
>                       <a
> href="https://accounts.firefox.com/complete_signin?code=573aa224ec46ba9bfde65d8250f6c6d3&amp;uid=b5a7718569a1417a9c419909ea2d9f17&amp;service=sync&amp;resume=eyJlbWFpbCI6ImNsYWNrZXkzQGVhcnRobGluay5uZXQiLCJlbnRyeXBvaW50IjoicHJlZmVyZW5jZXMiLCJmbG93QmVnaW4iOjE0ODQwOTg0MzY0MjgsImZsb3dJZCI6ImViOGFiMzU5ZTI0YmQwZmJjZDY5MjAxZGJiNDdjODMyNzE5OTMxYzZmN2ZlMWVkZTQ4NmIxZTVhMjVkMTMzYjQiLCJyZXNldFBhc3N3b3JkQ29uZmlybSI6dHJ1ZSwidW5pcXVlVXNlcklkIjoiNTFkYzdhYjMtNWIwOS00NDBjLWFjZDktODk2YzM5MzVmN2FiIiwidXRtQ2FtcGFpZ24iOm51bGwsInV0bUNvbnRlbnQiOm51bGwsInV0bU1lZGl1bSI6bnVsbCwidXRtU291cmNlIjpudWxsLCJ1dG1UZXJtIjpudWxsfQ%3D%3D&amp;utm_source=email&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=fx-new-signin&amp;utm_content=fx-confirm-signin"
>
>                       id="button-link"
>                       style="font-family: sans-serif;color:
> rgb(255,255,255);display: block;padding: 15.0px;text-decoration:
> none;width: 280.0px;"
>                       rel="nofollow">Confirm sign-in</a>
>                   </td>       </tr> </tbody></table>   </td> </tr>
>
>

The fact that the HTML is so badly-done that it is using the 
long-deprecated practice of using tables for formatting says a lot. Maybe 
somebody needs to send them a set of Eric Meyer's books on CSS.
0
John
1/11/2017 11:01:15 PM
John McGaw wrote:
> The fact that the HTML is so badly-done that it is using the 
> long-deprecated practice of using tables for formatting says
> a lot.

No, it doesn't: "deprecated" is an advice, nothing more.

> Maybe somebody needs to send them a set of Eric Meyer's books
> on CSS.

Mabye somebody needs to send a textbook about "backward
compatibility" to the browser makers.

-p

0
PietB
1/12/2017 10:35:23 AM
In message 
<mailman.1321.1484217356.19729.support-firefox@lists.mozilla.org>, PietB 
<www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> writes:
>John McGaw wrote:
>> The fact that the HTML is so badly-done that it is using the
>> long-deprecated practice of using tables for formatting says
>> a lot.
>
>No, it doesn't: "deprecated" is an advice, nothing more.
>
>> Maybe somebody needs to send them a set of Eric Meyer's books
>> on CSS.
>
>Mabye somebody needs to send a textbook about "backward
>compatibility" to the browser makers.
>
>-p
>
People who love using the word "deprecated" have negative regard for the 
concept of backward compatibility. And I encounter it far more in 
browser discussions (e. g. here) than anywhere else in life.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A man is not contemptible because he thinks science explains everything, and a
man is not contemptible because he doesn't. - Howard Jacobson, in Radio Times
2010/1/23-29.
0
J
1/15/2017 12:55:40 PM
On 1/15/2017 7:55 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message
> <mailman.1321.1484217356.19729.support-firefox@lists.mozilla.org>, PietB
> <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> writes:
>> John McGaw wrote:
>>> The fact that the HTML is so badly-done that it is using the
>>> long-deprecated practice of using tables for formatting says
>>> a lot.
>>
>> No, it doesn't: "deprecated" is an advice, nothing more.
>>
>>> Maybe somebody needs to send them a set of Eric Meyer's books
>>> on CSS.
>>
>> Mabye somebody needs to send a textbook about "backward
>> compatibility" to the browser makers.
>>
>> -p
>>
> People who love using the word "deprecated" have negative regard for the
> concept of backward compatibility. And I encounter it far more in browser
> discussions (e. g. here) than anywhere else in life.

And some people will use the <blink> tag, a half-dozen <font> tags per 
paragraph and unreadable colors freely in every page they write. Just 
because it _can_ be done does not mean that it _should_ be. I just find it 
amazing that so many people are averse to following modern practices. At 
one time tables were really the only way to achieve some types of 
presentation. Those days are done so why not accept it and move on to 
modern standards? There aren't too many people using Netscape Navigator as 
their browser today so there is no reason to write down to that level.
0
John
1/15/2017 2:21:17 PM
In message 
<mailman.1488.1484490115.19728.support-firefox@lists.mozilla.org>, John 
McGaw <no.where@all.dca1.giganews.com> writes:
>On 1/15/2017 7:55 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message
>> <mailman.1321.1484217356.19729.support-firefox@lists.mozilla.org>, PietB
>> <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> writes:
>>> John McGaw wrote:
>>>> The fact that the HTML is so badly-done that it is using the
>>>> long-deprecated practice of using tables for formatting says
>>>> a lot.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't: "deprecated" is an advice, nothing more.
>>>
>>>> Maybe somebody needs to send them a set of Eric Meyer's books
>>>> on CSS.
>>>
>>> Mabye somebody needs to send a textbook about "backward
>>> compatibility" to the browser makers.
>>>
>>> -p
>>>
>> People who love using the word "deprecated" have negative regard for the
>> concept of backward compatibility. And I encounter it far more in browser
>> discussions (e. g. here) than anywhere else in life.
>
>And some people will use the <blink> tag, a half-dozen <font> tags per 
>paragraph and unreadable colors freely in every page they write. Just 
>because it _can_ be done does not mean that it _should_ be. I just find 
>it amazing that so many people are averse to following modern 
>practices. At one time tables were really the only way to achieve some 
>types of presentation. Those days are done so why not accept it and

I agree, tables are not the way to achieve formatting; they're not even 
a particularly good way to achieve that.

>move on to modern standards? There aren't too many people using 
>Netscape Navigator as their browser today so there is no reason to 
>write down to that level.

Conversely, some things seem to be deprecated for no good reason - my 
favourite example being probably the {center} tag, which now "has to" be 
replaced by something like {div align= center} - why? (I can see that 
"div" is far more versatile, but why "deprecate" the simpler option?)

"Modern standards" also seems to include pages that won't display unless 
viewed with a both wide and deep window, rather than adjusting to the 
user's chosen size, and also which contain - or link to - vast amounts 
of scripting, even for the simplest pages where it's _not_ necessary.

(But this is getting OT for [modern at least] Firefox, so we'd better 
terminate, or go to general, before the boss comes along. Modern Firefox 
_loves_ "deprecate".)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Electricians do it 'till it Hz.
0
J
1/15/2017 3:11:13 PM
John McGaw wrote:
> And some people will use the <blink> tag

Their choice, and it's correct html.

> a half-dozen <font> tags per paragraph

Their choice, often with very good reason, and it's correct html.

> and unreadable colors

Their choice, and it's correct html.

> Just because it _can_ be done does not mean that it _should_ be.

Personal tastt is not a matter of "should".

> I just find it amazing that so many people are averse to following
> modern practices.

They may have good reasons for their personal choice.
And "IMHO I just find ..." would have been more appropriate.

> There aren't too many people using Netscape Navigator as their
> browser today

Good modern browsers are backward compatible.

> so there is no reason to write down to that level.

There can be.

-p


0
PietB
1/16/2017 8:30:25 AM
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> Conversely, some things seem to be deprecated for no good reason - my 
> favourite example being probably the {center} tag, which now "has to"
> be replaced by something like {div align= center} - why? (I can see that
> "div" is far more versatile, but why "deprecate" the simpler option?)

My favourite is an inline <font ...> which you could replace by a
<div ...> with the same effect on the font, but at the expense of
an unwanted line break.

-p

0
PietB
1/16/2017 8:35:50 AM
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------F0F53E92B0AA804F811F6DB7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun Jan 15 2017 07:55:40 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time), J. P.
Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> People who love using the word "deprecated" have negative regard for the 
> concept of backward compatibility. And I encounter it far more in 
> browser discussions (e. g. here) than anywhere else in life.

Maybe some do, but most that I know use it from either a pragmatic or
modernistic perspective (or both).

The fact is, once something is declared deprecated, unless that changes,
it means that:

 a) support for it could be removed at some later point in time,
 b) it would likely not be getting any 'love' (bug fixes or
improvements), and
 c) the new way that is replacing it is (usually) better in many ways
(performance, code stability/security, etc).

People who continue to use a deprecated method once it is clear it will
remain deprecated I have found are often just not interested in learning
anything new.

--------------F0F53E92B0AA804F811F6DB7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sun Jan 15 2017 07:55:40 GMT-0500
      (Eastern Standard Time), J. P. Gilliver (John)
      <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk">&lt;G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk&gt;</a> wrote:
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:IoSSorZMF3eYFw5$@soft255.demon.co.uk"
      type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">People who love using the word "deprecated" have negative regard for the 
concept of backward compatibility. And I encounter it far more in 
browser discussions (e. g. here) than anywhere else in life.
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Maybe some do, but most that I know use it from either a pragmatic
    or modernistic perspective (or both).<br>
    <br>
    The fact is, once something is declared deprecated, unless that
    changes, it means that:<br>
    <br>
    �a) support for it could be removed at some later point in time,<br>
    �b) it would likely not be getting any 'love' (bug fixes or
    improvements), and<br>
    �c) the new way that is replacing it is (usually) better in many
    ways (performance, code stability/security, etc).<br>
    <br>
    People who continue to use a deprecated method once it is clear it
    will remain deprecated I have found are often just not interested in
    learning anything new.<br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------F0F53E92B0AA804F811F6DB7--
0
Disaster
1/16/2017 11:57:55 AM
On 01/16/2017 02:35 AM, PietB wrote:

[snip]

> My favourite is an inline <font ...> which you could replace by a
> <div ...> with the same effect on the font, but at the expense of
> an unwanted line break.
>

I was going the other way (experimenting with making pages compatible 
with older browsers) when I encountered the <font tag. I was already 
using something like:

This is the <SPAN CLASS=fixed>fixed width</SPAN> font.

Which inserts no line break. Apparently, SPAN and DIV are the same 
otherwise. I was using SPAN for awhile before I even heard of DIV.

> -p
>


-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"...It was as if the interlopers had suggested to a bunch of born-again
Christians that they hunt up the Ark of the Covenant and turn it into a
pay toilet." [Stephen King (The Wastelands)]
0
Mark
1/16/2017 4:40:05 PM
Mark Lloyd wrote:
> PietB wrote:
>> My favourite is an inline <font ...> which you could replace by a
>> <div ...> with the same effect on the font, but at the expense of
>> an unwanted line break.
> 
> I was going the other way (experimenting with making pages compatible 
> with older browsers) when I encountered the <font tag. I was already 
> using something like:
> 
> This is the <SPAN CLASS=fixed>fixed width</SPAN> font.

You're right. Overlooked that.

-p

0
PietB
1/16/2017 5:57:56 PM
Reply: