Reviews for Print Edit WE
Print Edit WE by DW-dev
Review by hmeade
Rated 1 out of 5
by hmeade, 4 years agoThe instructions say to press the tool bar icon or right click > print edit we > print edit, in order to begin editing, then a blue badge appears. The blue badge does not appear, and nothing happens when I follow these steps. I could give more than one star if this add-on had at least SOME functionality...
440 reviews
- Rated 5 out of 5by MALAIKA, 10 days ago
- Rated 5 out of 5by Paul, a month ago
- Rated 5 out of 5by walking programmer, a month ago
- Rated 5 out of 5by manjula praneeth, a month ago
- Rated 5 out of 5by Mohammadreza, a month ago
- Rated 5 out of 5by A-mazya, a month ago
- Rated 4 out of 5by Firefox user 18406470, 2 months ago
- Rated 3 out of 5by Heisenberg, 2 months agoWhile this is a very important add-on for my web / news archiving, I have encountered a great number of issues over the past few versions.
In this current version, I spend a lot of time refining the print layout only to have it stop responding, which requires me to reload the webpage and lose every tweak I spent time on.
In this and previous versions, some webpages randomly shift the edit boxes, making things like adjusting font size difficult, as the checkbox to activate the intended tweak is shifted up or down a few boxes.
I've noticed some webpages reload after a set amount of time, rendering the editing process precariously challenged by time limits, as it yields a blank white page during the editing process on such pages. It would be nice if PrintEdit could include configuration to suspend any running scripts or otherwise put the page in a static mode while editing.
Some edits don't make sense. How do I get my bulleted lists back? Changing the font size or margins and poof, bullets be gone.
Again, my use is for archiving purposes, particularly when webpages either get edited or are otherwise removed. Typically I don't need photo-exact reproduction, but I do need content-accurate archiving and ideally in a neat print-form.
Plenty of bugs, but seriously, it is one of my essentials. Please do keep up the good work. This review is NOT indended to push people away. It is simply a snapshot in time on what I'm experiencing with it. - Rated 4 out of 5by de_mihab, 2 months ago
- Rated 4 out of 5by GalacticPrez, 2 months ago
- Rated 1 out of 5by Firefox user 18353062, 3 months agoLeider nicht zu gebrauchen, um nur Teile einer website zu drucken...
- Rated 5 out of 5by Firefox user 18294034, 4 months ago
- Rated 5 out of 5by pspvinyls10, 4 months agoDefinitely the BEST print editor for webpages! I saved so much paper and time using this extension.
- Rated 5 out of 5by Firefox user 18242114, 5 months ago
- Rated 5 out of 5by balta2ar, 5 months ago
- Rated 5 out of 5by shtormish, 6 months ago
- Rated 4 out of 5by Firefox user 18218893, 6 months agoBest addon that is capable of saving a page as a real (not rasterized) PDF with selectable text, working links and preserving layout as seen on screen. Removing one star because "Web style" is not working 100%. Some print vs screen media css is still messed in the generated PDF breaking some pages. I'll give full 5 starts when fixed.
The addon needs quite a lot of tinkering with "scale" option to have the page saved looking exactly as in the browser. Consider implementing some automatic formula for the scale option based on the window size and the page width so the exported PDF will look the same as on the screen.
Also consider adding an option to export the web into a single page HTML with automatically calculated PDF page height. It can be hacked manually tinkering with the page height but it requires a lot of manual trials and it could be automated. Then one could do something like a "pdf screenshot". - Rated 4 out of 5by Firefox user 18207990, 6 months ago
- Rated 5 out of 5by Ashwin, 6 months ago
- Rated 1 out of 5by okok, 6 months agothis is definition of useless. why this is even in recommendation.
- Rated 2 out of 5by Firefox user 18189269, 7 months agoSignificant parts of the webpage are not included, so in my case the extension isn't helpful.