Blog

Multi-Safari, now with a download link

Exactly one year ago, I unveiled a method to make older versions of Safari work on newer version of the operating system, and run them side by side. Since then, I collected all versions of Safari I could find and created standalone versions. Then some days ago, Stefan Skotte offered to host the files, which today allows me to release them publicly for the pleasure of all those who want to test their web pages in obsolete browsers.

One important thing you should take note is that Safari versions for Panther (Mac OS X 10.3.x) won’t work on Tiger (10.4.x), and the reverse is also true. I’ve given up on that a while ago. So to be able to test in all these versions of Safari, you’ll need two operating system installed. This is, while not ideal, much better than having one Mac OS X install for each version of Safari.

As someone pointed out to me during the last month, all the Web Kit sources from now to the beginning are available in the SVN repository, so I suppose someone could undertake the project and create compatible older versions. But I doubt someone will do that, as it’s not an easy job and maintaining old software isn’t much fun.

Correspondence with my MP

I’ve finally received an answer to my email on environmental questions I addressed to my MP, Mr. Steven Blaney, conservative, representing Lévis-Bellechasse at the Parlement of Canada. So now I decided to publish a followup to “Letter to my MP” I’ve published exactly one month ago.

What I find a little odd is that he has chosen to answer by posting a comment (in French) on my weblog rather than replying to my email. Two reasons makes me believe it’s the published weblog entry that made him react rather than my private email:

1. it’s probably obvious, but when I wrote my original email I hadn’t published anything so I could not give him a URL to it;
2. when he responded, it was exactly 21 days after the weblog entry disappeared from my home page, he probably found the article by other means than following the link to my website in my email.

And to complement argument number two, I’ll point you to the results of a Google search in French on Steven Blaney which puts my “Lettre à mon député” sixth in the result list (which may changes after publishing this of course).

What should be remembered from this story is that it’s probably a good idea if you write to your MP to publish the letter somewhere, especially if he or she does not respond. And since last week I sent him my second email in response to what he wrote, and since he hasn’t answered yet, I’m doing it again.

So here is the answer from the honorable member of parlement for Lévis-Bellechasse, Steven Blaney, followed by what I replied to him in an email last week. The actual correspondence is in French, this is a translation of my own, except for the excerpt of the house debates which is the House’s translation.

Dear Mr. Fortin,

I would like first to apologize for the delay answering your last email. During the last three months, I have hired some people and we created district offices at Lévis and Etchemins in addition to the Ottawa office. I have also begun parliamentary work wich is quite exiting.

I have the pleasure to inform you that I am sitting at the Environnement and Sustainable Development committee. I have also had the opportunity to speek in the House on that subject and I invite you to consult the debate journal to examine my position on that subject. Our government is preparing a greenhouse gaz emission reduction plan which will give concrete results, contrary to the results of the last thirteen liberal years.

I would be happy to meet you at the district office or at Ottawa when it will be appropriate for you.

I’m considering myself privileged for being our region’s representative and I wish to contribute actively to its economic prosperity in a context of sustainable development.

Pleasure to meet you,

Blaney, Steven (CPC–Lévis-Bellechasse)

To: blanes@parl.gc.ca
Subject: Environnement & Kyoto
Date: May 16, 2006

Mr. Steven Blaney,

Thank you for the answer you left on my website. I’ve taken the allowance to replace with a link the transcription of your speech about Kyoto you inserted in your comment since it was a little long and it got formatted very badly by the software managing this website.

I’ve read with much interest discussion transcriptions in which you participated. But reading what you say in your speech, I do not really understand why you are against this motion. You said:

The previous government’s plan was actually written on the back of a paper napkin on the plane en route to Kyoto: “There was no long term planning. There was no real negotiation with the provinces or with industry sectors. In fact it was a last minute, hastily drafted agreement”.

Do you think that today in this House, I am going to endorse a motion that supports that plan and those initiatives? Canadians certainly deserve better than an agreement written on a scrap of paper when we are talking about our children’s future. And that is exactly what we are talking about today.

I’m okay with the first part of what you said: it is of course possible to do better than the Liberal plan. But I do not understand why you reject this motion: the proposed motion has absolutely no reference to the Liberal plan, it simply asks that the government “take the necessary measures to ensure that Canada meets its objective for greenhouse gas reduction established under the Kyoto Protocol” and to propose a plan for that in October. Personally, I’d do anything for a motion like that: isn’t it a good occasion to demonstrate the seriousness your government puts in its greenhouse gas reduction engagements?

Whatever happens, it seems that the only possible option right now is to wait the conservative plan. I simply hope that what you’re working on will be more effective and will go further than what we have seen until now.

About a meeting, I’d be pleased. I will let you know when I have the time. Thank you for the invitation.

Michel Fortin

Minor Changes

Everywhere, there is always something to improve, especially when we’ve made the thing ourself. Today I’ve improved my website with two small changes. Take the time to look around and if you regularly come to my site you may be able to spot the changes. Or you can read what follows…

First change: Added a logo on the project pages. Ah! Don’t forget that the project pages have a completely different design. Now, if you go see PHP Markdown or Gamma Control you’ll always know you’re on my website because of the small sail boat I added at the top. You’ll also find out that I removed the rounded corners and that the first header isn’t in small caps anymore.

Second change: Widening. So simple, how not to see that at first glance! The page you’re reading is now 45 em wide instead of 44. Projects pages get a bigger enlargement with 44 em instead of 40 (the true question sould be how would you see that?!). Of course, you won’t see any change if your browser window is not wide enough. All this because I was feeling my pages where a little to much squeezed. And no, I didn’t expect anyone to find out just by looking at it.

So, what do you think?

Color Oracle vs. Sim Daltonism

If you’ve been enjoying Sim Daltonism, you may be interested in another Mac OS X application to simulate color blindness. I’ve just found out about Color Oracle. Color Oracle let you see the whole screen as a color-blind person would see it which in some way makes it better than Sim Daltonism. The drawback of this approach is that you cannot interact with what you see; you have to leave the filtered mode before doing anything else. Beside that, both use a different filtering algorithm, which, interestingly, does not give the same results.

I’ve done some tests with Color Oracle and Sim Daltonism to see how different the results where between the two. The test is simple: apply each color blindness filter to Mac OS X’s color selector’s color wheel. The wheel looks like this unfiltered:

Now, if I filter the same wheel with the deuteranopia filter, here is what I get (Color Oracle on the left, Sim Daltonism on the right):

While the result is somewhat similar, there are four striking differences:

• Sim Daltonism alters the grays while Color Oracle does not (look at the striped background);
• Sim Daltonism push blues, greens and reds towards aqua, orange and brown while Color Oracle keeps the blues more pure and the greens and reds more yellow;
• Sim Daltonism replace yellows by whites while Color Oracle does not;
• Sim Daltonism puts some sort of dark spot deeper blues.

The same differences are appearing with protanopia but to a lesser extent (Color Oracle on the left, Sim Daltonism on the right):

With tritanopia however, the results appears to be practically the same:

There is still some differences however: whites are a little whiter and grays (look at the striped background) are a little blueish on Sim Daltonism’s side.

So which one is the best? I’d suspect Color Oracle beats Sim Daltonism on the quality of its filter. I’m not an expert in color blindness nor color theory, but I say that because I don’t see any valid reason for any of the differences noted above. There is no reason for a dark spot in the blues, for the yellow to become white, nor the grays to become something else.

I’ll see what I can do to improve things a bit. That would probably imply using the same algorithm as Color Oracle which is described in detail in this paper (PDF).