From 7b60af87f1a4b0f5fb7af435a862aff90a029513 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 09:29:49 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Updated=20Does=20=C2=B5Block=20block=20ads=20or?= =?UTF-8?q?=20just=20hide=20them=3F=20(markdown)?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- Does-µBlock-block-ads-or-just-hide-them?.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Does-µBlock-block-ads-or-just-hide-them?.md b/Does-µBlock-block-ads-or-just-hide-them?.md index 3a6507d..b2cf18c 100644 --- a/Does-µBlock-block-ads-or-just-hide-them?.md +++ b/Does-µBlock-block-ads-or-just-hide-them?.md @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ When a network request is filtered, **both** uBlock and ABP will collapse the DO In **both** uBlock and ABP, this occurs **after** the DOM is loaded, so in both cases, users **may** be able to visually notice the placeholder collapsing after the page loads. -Yet, uBlock is at an advantage in such case: since it does not inject thousands of CSS rules in a page (and frames within that page), this means it makes itself available sooner to handle the task of collapsing the DOM counterpart of network requests. This can be clearly appreciated in the following [test page](http://raymondhill.net/ublock/tiles1.html): +Yet, uBlock is at an advantage in such case: since it does not inject thousands of CSS rules in a page (and frames within that page), this means it makes itself available sooner to handle the task of collapsing the DOM counterpart of blocked network requests. This can be clearly appreciated in the following [test page](http://raymondhill.net/ublock/tiles1.html): - Chromium + uBlock: minimal flickering (sometimes none) - Chromium + ABP: noticeable flickering