I’ve gotten a few complaints this week from some overly paranoid people that say they can’t see WUWT anymore in Firefox, but can in Safari. The problem seems to be related solely to a browser extension called “ghostery” which is somehow flagging Adobe Typekit (used to provide custom fonts on WordPress) as some sort of malware.
I suspect this happened all of the sudden due to some sort of “upgrade” that was automatically installed for Ghostery.
Adobe Typekit is used by thousands upon thousands of websites, it is completely safe. Just look at the list of major websites in the lower right that use it:
Source: https://www.ghostery.com/en/apps/typekit_by_adobe
Personally, I think the Ghostery browser extension is a complete waste of time, as what it does is handled by other malware and AV programs installed in your computer, but some people insist on using it anyway and bizarrely demand that I change WUWT to accommodate them. Well folks, tough noogies, I can’t, I don’t have any control whatsoever over such things.
However, the end user does, and here is the simple solution to the problem:
Problem:
Ghostery browser extension is blocking Typekit
Solution:
Go to Options > Blocking Options > Trackers > Widgets and uncheck “Typekit by Adobe”.
Source: http://help.typekit.com/customer/portal/articles/807568-troubleshooting-guide-using-web-fonts
If you don’t want to perform this simple task, then there’s no other solution except to uninstall Ghostery.
Thanks for visiting WUWT – Anthony Watts
Yeah, on Firefox, I occasionally had an odd problem w/the font changing drastically when viewing WUWT offline. When I permanently enabled adobe typekit in ghostery, the problem went away.
I use Firefox and I can see WUWT just fine. I have never even heard of the ghostery extension.
Anth*ny, I sympathize, but Ghostery in Firefox is useful, at least for me, in greatly speeding up web page loading by skipping many of the parasitic java scripts. But it does take some effort to learn by experience which scripts are necessary to view the page and which are not required — so perhaps not appropriate for all users.
In case anybody cares, Blur does block Typekit in Chrome and I don’t seem to be missing anything important on this site.
It isn’t being flagged as a “problem”. By default Ghostery will block everything if you tell it to. I discovered this a while back and made a note of it in the “Tips” thread. I noticed I had to allow Adobe Typekit in order to render the site. Ghostery doesn’t make a judgement as to what is a problem or not, it simply allows the user to control which things are allowed. The user must decide. By default even commenting extensions such as Disqus are blocked.
Anyone who was complaining about this and could not figure it out on their own has no business using these browser extensions. This is the problem when pseudo-technical people recommend silly extensions to other pseudo-technical people. It is absolutely irresponsible to recommend anyone use Ghostery or NoScript as both will frequently break basic webpage functionality such as commenting and various third party video players.
Adobe Typekit tracks basic website usage of its fonts not privacy information of these site’s visitors.
http://blog.typekit.com/2013/06/13/clarifying-our-commitment-to-privacy/
http://www.adobe.com/privacy/typekit.html
“Typekit makes a point not to track visitors on websites that use Typekit fonts. However, we do collect information about the fonts being served to each site. This data does not include any information about the users who are visiting a site serving Typekit fonts.”
I am aggravated that these pseudo-technical people are emailing Anthony and wasting his time with this nonsense. These people need to learn how something works before you install it and stop taking idiotic advice from people who do not know what they are talking about online. With Ghostery it is their Widgets category that will cause almost all of the problems and Typekit by Adobe is in this category.
None of these extensions are going to protect you from anything or make you anonymous, if you want to be anonymous you have to mask your IP.
As for webpage loading speed there is only one extension that really makes a difference but out of respect for how webpage owners make money I am not going to recommend it here.
The nonsense is right above. I’ve never used Ghostery, but I know that it and NoScript are not “silly extensions”. Others have explained why. The claim “that only one extension that really makes a difference” in “webpage loading speed” is just as absurd. [Before the “pseudo-technical” label is applied – I graduated summa cum laude in computer science.] T
Exactly, Ghostery and NoScript have no business being on anyone’s computer who is not technical and knows how they work as they will effectively cripple the functionality of perfectly safe webpages. Again, Ghostery’s widgets category is the most onerousness as it breaks all manner of perfectly safe web content.
I don’t have a problem with overly paranoid technical people using them, I have a big problem with them being recommended and sold as necessary to non-technical and pseudo-technical people out of unsubstantiated fear-mongering over “privacy”.
You want 100% privacy? Don’t use the Internet. How many people have these extensions installed yet use their real name on Social Media sites? LMAO.
Okay here goes I am 63 years old married (40+ years) 3 kids 4 grand kids (as far as I know), Dutch descent live in Canada, love soccer, CFL NHL, NFL, do not understand cricket, we shop wherever we can find the best deals, love NZ and Ozzie beef, and Chinese food (My wife is an artist both in the kitchen and with paint), drive a humongous SUV ( live in the country). and gardening is my puttering and hobby. Grape growing and wines are a passion although with age the wine part is becoming a larger part. Like the NET and the news and miss WiZiWig a lot. I have a cell phone although rarely used, satellite TV ( we are rural no cable or analog). So lets see what did I miss?, Oh right I am regular in the morning, shave when I feel like it and shower everyday, brush my teeth at least twice a day and love my beer as I watch a game I like tinkering and “fixing” things. For breakfast Juice toast and marmalade or oatmeal,
If I left anything out let me know! 😀
I guess I left out the fact we do not like what is happening on the planet as history shows it is becoming a repeat and if we are correct the aftermath is going to be a lot worse in the near future. We also like WUWT because most of the time it teaches us things that we did not know but are aware of, So thanks everybody keep up the threads.
[Commercial]
Narrator: “Ghostery …protecting you everyday from the evils of Adobe Typekit and being able to read comments on websites.”
Pseudo-technical user: “Yes! finally no more fancy fonts and reading people’s opinions of webpages. Take that NSA and the man!”
I’ve been using Ghostery and Adblock for a long time. I know how and when to unblock when I want to see something.
I have no problem with my browsing experience.
The problem is the other people aren’t reading any of this – because they are staring at a white page, and thinking that WUWT has gone offline!
Other sites also use Typekit, which, when blocked, does not cause the same problem.
Those people should not be using browser extensions like Ghostery and NoScript.
WUWT is visible in all browsers with Ghostery not installed or disabled, thus the problem is with Ghostery.
Stop wasting Anthony’s time with this nonsense and go complain to the irresponsible people who made their crappy Ghostery browser extension that breaks basic webpage functionality.
There is a very simple rule for running a webpage:
Does the page work normally with a clean install of the latest versions, of the three most popular browsers (Chrome, Firefox and IE), with no browser extensions installed on a clean, properly functioning PC? If so then it is not my problem.
Popech,
Typekit is apparently spyware and blocking it is IMO justified, but that is neither here nor there.
The people that have a problem aren’t reading this thread. They can’t see it. They don’t know what the problem is or how to fix it.
I don’t know how many of them there are, and if Anthony wants to write them off as too stupid to surf the web then that is his prerogative. They will go elsewhere.
He and anybody else using Typekit should however be aware of the issue, and make their decisions accordingly.
WTF are you talking about? Since when did Adobe Typekit become spyware? Name one major anti-virus/malware company that classifies it as such. This is the sort of blatant misinformation I am talking about.
Produce any remote evidence that Adobe Typekit is malicious.
And yes, anyone who has the Ghostery browser extension installed and believes Adobe Typekit is malicious spyware from zero evidence should retire from the Internet.
The solution: GET A MAC!
LOL ANOTHER error, another error on teh interwebz taht must be corrected! Sancho PONZI to the rescue!
I will continue to use Ghostery. Without it this page loads 52 different trackers, beacons, behavioral monitors, etc. With it, it loads 6. I really do not want 52 different outside companies being notified about my browsing habits.
Ghostery blocks Typekit because it (Ghostery) is doing its job. Blocking web tracking is what it’s for. But if your page doesn’t even load without sending a phone-home to adobe, then there is absolutely a problem with your coding.
Does it really surprise anyone that things might not work together exactly as planned, when a site is trying to phone home to;
– Amazon Associates
– Facebook Social Graph
– Facebook Social Plugins
– Google Adsense
– Google Analytics
– Gravatar
– Twitter badge
– Twitter Button
– Typekit
Climate Etc. has Typekit too. Pages load just fine without being enabled in Ghostery.
I understand the need to monetize content on the web. Just be clear that when people fight back against relentless privacy violations that they aren’t doing so out of malice.
iwatts,
correct.
Produce any remote evidence that Adobe Typekit is malicious.
Misrepresenting these scripts used for web analytics with privacy violations is absolutely irresponsible.
Poptech,
Typekit.com, Whizzbang!!media.com, data-aggregators.com, etc…, etc… might indeed be perfectly benign. And I could whip out wireshark or something an analyze precisely what is being sent at the packet level, as well as going to each company and analyzing their (stated) privacy policies But assuming I believe that all companies follow their own rules (they don’t), that seems like a tremendous amount of effort to go through. So for the moment I am happy with Ghostery blocking such things by default and letting me decide what to let through. For me, wattsupwiththat.com is the first and only website that I have encountered that breaks completely without phoning adobe.com.
Still no evidence of anything just conspiratorial nonsense. Using your logic you should not trust Ghostery since how do you know they are following their own rules?
Your meaningless anecdotes are not evidence of anything, all they mean is you have not visited enough websites that use Adobe Typekit because the Ghostery extension is breaking WUWT, their injected surrogate script is causing this.
So let’s see if I have this straight. It’s my fault that the specific implementation of the combination of Firefox+Ghostery+Wordpress+Typekit doesn’t render correctly, and it’s merely because I don’t visit enough sites with this combination that I don’t see the problem more?
Sounds like an argument for using less obscure web-page delivery at the server level than for forcing users to enable phoning home to Adobe. But A. Watts can run it how he likes. As KenW pointed out, if I hadn’t found a workaround, I wouldn’t be viewing this discussion.
It is your fault for installing an extension (Ghostery) that injects a surrogate script that break sites like WUWT. This has nothing to do with Firefox, WordPress or Adobe. The only thing breaking anything is Ghostery.
And yes if you visited enough sites that use Adobe Typekit you would eventually find the same behavior.
Sounds like it is time you start holding Ghostery accountable for breaking WUWT.
“Sounds like it is time you start holding Ghostery accountable for breaking WUWT.”
It has nothing to do with my “holding Ghostery or WUWT” accountable at all. I use ghostery for a reason, and it wouldn’t surprise me a bit that the free plugin might itself be broken on occasion. If it were the culprit for breaking 10% of the sites I visit, I’d probably disable it entirely. I don’t particularly enjoy diving into “Why the site won’t load.” issues as some sort of hobby. But for me, so far it’s just this one. Perhaps that will change. I’ll have to see.
It breaks functionality on more than just 10% of pages, especially ones that use commenting system and third party embedded video players. Ghostery users are likely unaware in these instances since they can still partially see some of the content.
You still do not seem to understand why WUWT is breaking – it is because Ghostery is injecting a broken surrogate script for Adobe Typekit that breaks WUWT. Without Adobe Typekit, WUWT will still load just without enhanced fonts.
Ghostery is the sole reason WUWT is breaking, nothing else.
“Ghostery is the sole reason WUWT is breaking, nothing else.”
Nope. Typekit and this particular coding is involved as well. As for “More than 10% of the sites I visit” being similarly broken? Yes and no. If you mean “broken” in that tracking-crap like Disqus, and 6 different beacons to Facebook, Google and Adobe is blocked? You bet. THAT’S WHY I USE IT! If you mean broken in that not even the basic content will load? No. That’s so far a lot less than 10%. The only site I visit on a regular basis that won’t even load at all without allowing Ghostery to let Typekit through is this one. Other people’s mileage may vary. I’m mostly worried about what I surf to.
Incorrect, this issue is all due to Ghostery and its surrogate scripting engine…
https://twitter.com/nilsgeylen/status/570905772785328128
https://twitter.com/philwalton/status/503941151741575168
Broken as in basic web page functionality such as commenting and embedded video do not load.
People should be aware of where things are taking us.
http://smartdatacollective.com/bernardmarr/146811/danger-3-reasons-be-scared-big-data
They can make their own decisions.
We are not talking about fear-mongering fantasy scenarios that do not exist but current reality. People can make their own decisions but only if they are given accurate information and not hysterical, unsubstantiated nonsense.
No one has produced any remote evidence that Adobe Typekit is malicious.
I think we have the case of people interpreting jargon in different ways. I am sure your definition of ‘malicious’ is not the same as mine. I see the attempts by websites to force the choice of fonts in my browser windows as malicious. In my view, typekit is malicious because it does something I don’t want. I simply use the word in a dictionary sense, as I suspect many others do.
That is not a definition of malicious. Using your definition any software bug would be “malicious”, which would be absurd. There is no remote evidence of Adobe Typekit attempting to cause damage or harm to someone’s system. So far no one has been able to provide a shred of evidence disputing any of the following,
http://blog.typekit.com/2013/06/13/clarifying-our-commitment-to-privacy/
“Typekit makes a point not to track visitors on websites that use Typekit fonts. However, we do collect information about the fonts being served to each site. This data does not include any information about the users who are visiting a site serving Typekit fonts. The tracking data is used to operate the Typekit service, as well as accurately pay our foundry partners.”
http://www.adobe.com/privacy/typekit.html
What information is collected by the Typekit service?
In order to provide the Typekit service, Adobe may collect information about the fonts being served to your website. The information is used for the purposes of billing and compliance, and may include the following:
* Fonts served
* Kit ID
* Account ID (identifies the customer the kit is from)
* Service providing the fonts (e.g., Typekit or Edge Web Fonts)
* Application requesting the fonts (e.g., Adobe Muse)
* Server serving the fonts (e.g., Typekit servers or Enterprise CDN)
* Hostname of page loading the fonts
* The amount of time it takes the web browser to download the fonts
* The amount of time it takes from the web browser downloading the fonts until the fonts are applied
Dear Poptech.
typekit.assistly.com: type ANY, class IN
Why would WUWT be looking for that domain? Why should users trust anything when the conversation is encrypted? Why would pages fail to render if Adobe is blocked, and many of the other sites that have Typekit as an option display just fine with it blocked. It’s a trust thing, and as the climate debate has shown us, trust usually has to be earned with hard data. Adobe states it tracks use. How can it do that if it can’t track users?
(On which point, there were around 168 DNS lookups on this page display. Local DNS caches with white/blacklists may improve load times)
The pages fail to render because Ghostery’s surrogate scripting engine is breaking them.
https://twitter.com/Ghostery/status/503950229960687616
https://twitter.com/Ghostery/status/570947067595530240
The problem is probably related to this:
http://blog.typekit.com/2011/05/25/loading-typekit-fonts-asynchronously/
——————
Looking around the net I see many sites using typekit.
Besides WUWT, this one: http://help.typekit.com/customer/portal/topics/59232
is the only other that i find that has the problem.
Loading a web font asynchronously simply delays the application of that font. Meanwhile, the page is rendered with default fonts. In no event should a failure to load a font result in a blank page. In fact, that is precisely how I force the use of my own fonts in web pages: I block typekit and other web font providers. Everything works fine (tested in all browsers on a mac).
Wrong, it is breaking because Ghostery is injecting a surrogate script that breaks WUWT, it is not simply blocking Adobe Typekit. The problem is with the crap Ghostery extension.
More on the issue here;
https://blog.5apps.com/2014/02/21/using-typekit-the-right-way-with-an-improved-loading-script.html
And I think they hit the nail on the head with…. “But I’d also like to encourage you to think about potential problems on the edges of your userbase, and especially to [b]never rely solely on third parties for your content to be available or visible[/b]. Otherwise you might end up with situations like these…”
This has nothing to do with this issue which is Ghostery’s surrogate scripting engine breaking WUWT.
https://twitter.com/Ghostery/status/503950229960687616
https://twitter.com/Ghostery/status/570947067595530240
Hmmm, use ghostery but not on this computer. Using SRWare browser WWT disappeared for a few days but has reappeared without me doing anything. I thought you had been hacked, were deceased or just bored with AGW but searches threw up no clues as to your demise. Haven’t read the whole thread so perhaps you do now know what the problem really is but don’t jump to the conclusion that it’s the reader’s fault. Anyway as a grown up you should know adobe sucks.
Actually Adobe software works fine – Acrobat, Photoshop and Premiere are excellent products and at the top of their class.
I am right again, this is a bug in Ghostery,
https://twitter.com/PopTechdotnet/status/572986716962861056
https://twitter.com/Ghostery/status/573155745115451392
LOL at believing what Adobe says about TypeKit.
Hey, remember when the chief of the NSA said it wasn’t spying on our phone calls?
Did you have any proof that it did, PopTech?
over and out
[others: time to stop feeding the troll]
Unlike conspiracy theorists like yourself, I believe what I actually have evidence for. Let me know when you can find any remote evidence that Adobe Typekit is malicious. The NSA scandal is just an idiotic comparison that has no remote relation to this.
While we are on it, please do not misrepresent the NSA issue either which was the collection of meta-data (phone numbers called, times and dates) about your phone calls and not the actual conversation itself. I personally believe that it was unconstitutional without a warrant but that is irrelevant to what was actually going on.
Now that we have learned this is a bug in Ghostery is anyone going to admit they were wrong?
Ghostery causing bug with Adobe Typekit confirmed.
https://purplebox.ghostery.com/post/1016024677
“** Ghostery v5.4.3 Update
We were seeing some issues with the Adobe Typekit Surrogate script.. so we fixed that.”
https://twitter.com/Ghostery/status/573155745115451392
Where did all the pseudo-technical users who wasted Anthony’s time go?
Where did all the conspiracy theorist, wanna-be computer security experts go?
It is not possible you were all wrong.
Version 5.4.3 now allows Adobe Typekit on Firefox. I just now received the update.
Confirmed: Ghostery v5.4.3 out for Firefox only right now,
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/ghostery/versions/
Bugs fixed:
– Adobe Typekit surrogate
All sorts of “clouds” are tools for the road to slavery via IT, equally as all the “spying” gadgets/toys for all the morons oblivious to the Big Brother World to come. Do you need “clouds” for everything? Really?
Ghostery did right thing entering the Adobe Typekit as IT evil. How much IQ level some need to have to open mind to the new horizons enabling them to spot the thoughtless herds and puppets of the New Big Brother?
Sad.
Alas, Mr Watts was always wrong outside climate issues.