When blogging recipes, how can I support both readers who want the narrative/journey and ones who want the printer-friendly recipe?“Lacking meat”, “Content-free”, and poor defense-development. Please critique my workHow large should photos on my blog be?
Check if two datetimes are between two others
Are objects structures and/or vice versa?
Ideas for colorfully and clearly highlighting graph edges according to weights
Why was the "bread communication" in the arena of Catching Fire left out in the movie?
Prime joint compound before latex paint?
How is it possible for user's password to be changed after storage was encrypted? (on OS X, Android)
Finding files for which a command fails
Unbreakable Formation vs. Cry of the Carnarium
Eliminate empty elements from a list with a specific pattern
"My colleague's body is amazing"
How to manage monthly salary
What is the meaning of "of trouble" in the following sentence?
Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"
Patience, young "Padovan"
How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect
Can produce flame be used to grapple, or as an unarmed strike, in the right circumstances?
Is it legal to have the "// (c) 2019 John Smith" header in all files when there are hundreds of contributors?
How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?
Is a car considered movable or immovable property?
How many letters suffice to construct words with no repetition?
Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?
Could Giant Ground Sloths have been a good pack animal for the ancient Mayans?
Add an angle to a sphere
Is Social Media Science Fiction?
When blogging recipes, how can I support both readers who want the narrative/journey and ones who want the printer-friendly recipe?
“Lacking meat”, “Content-free”, and poor defense-development. Please critique my workHow large should photos on my blog be?
Increasingly often, if you Google for a recipe your search results will be full of long, image-rich blog posts that, somewhere in there, have the actual recipe you were looking for. Many of these have a "printer-friendly version" link to make that easier; I can get the stuff I need in my kitchen on paper easily, but the author doesn't have to cut back on the part that is interesting when cooking is not imminent. Here's an example of the basic idea -- if you click on the "print" link it starts your browser print dialogue with a subset of the page's content. But that site made a separate page for the print version, and I want to post the recipe once not twice.
As somebody who sometimes posts about cooking, including recipes, on my blog, I'd like to be able to offer that printer-friendly version, too -- but I don't want to have to create the content twice. Is there some script or HTML magic that can help me? I write my blog posts in markdown and can include HTML tags. How do I modify my source to mark a portion of the post as content for a "print" link (and generate the link)?
non-fiction tools blog food-writing
|
show 12 more comments
Increasingly often, if you Google for a recipe your search results will be full of long, image-rich blog posts that, somewhere in there, have the actual recipe you were looking for. Many of these have a "printer-friendly version" link to make that easier; I can get the stuff I need in my kitchen on paper easily, but the author doesn't have to cut back on the part that is interesting when cooking is not imminent. Here's an example of the basic idea -- if you click on the "print" link it starts your browser print dialogue with a subset of the page's content. But that site made a separate page for the print version, and I want to post the recipe once not twice.
As somebody who sometimes posts about cooking, including recipes, on my blog, I'd like to be able to offer that printer-friendly version, too -- but I don't want to have to create the content twice. Is there some script or HTML magic that can help me? I write my blog posts in markdown and can include HTML tags. How do I modify my source to mark a portion of the post as content for a "print" link (and generate the link)?
non-fiction tools blog food-writing
4
I also blog recipes and want this feature! What a great question.
– Cyn
yesterday
2
@bruglesco single-sourcing two versions would be ok if necessary, but sometimes I edit after posting so having it just there once, with the print view generated on demand, would be ideal.
– Monica Cellio♦
22 hours ago
2
@user2397282 first, as someone else said, our scope includes publishing (and we have whole tags about blogging, publishing, software tools, and more). Second, the question is about publishing; the answers happen to be about CSS/jQuery; my question would be shot down on SO. Third, sites have overlapping scope; SO doesn't send all its database questions to DBA and its emacs questions to Emacs, we don't send our questions about publishing on Amazon to EBooks, and Workplace doesn't send its questions about difficult coworkers to Interpersonal Skills. If you have concerns, please raise on meta.
– Monica Cellio♦
8 hours ago
2
I agree this is an on topic question about publishing. Posts about details of blogs unrelated to Writing are off topic but this one is about the presentation of written material in interaction with the reader. I am voting "Leave Open."
– Cyn
8 hours ago
2
@undefined the answers here might lead me to ask followup questions on SO (especially since my CSS and JavaScript skills are somewhat limited). Questions sometimes end up having multiple pieces, not all of which necessarily belong on the same site; one of the strengths of the network, IMO, is that we can support that kind of multi-part question.
– Monica Cellio♦
8 hours ago
|
show 12 more comments
Increasingly often, if you Google for a recipe your search results will be full of long, image-rich blog posts that, somewhere in there, have the actual recipe you were looking for. Many of these have a "printer-friendly version" link to make that easier; I can get the stuff I need in my kitchen on paper easily, but the author doesn't have to cut back on the part that is interesting when cooking is not imminent. Here's an example of the basic idea -- if you click on the "print" link it starts your browser print dialogue with a subset of the page's content. But that site made a separate page for the print version, and I want to post the recipe once not twice.
As somebody who sometimes posts about cooking, including recipes, on my blog, I'd like to be able to offer that printer-friendly version, too -- but I don't want to have to create the content twice. Is there some script or HTML magic that can help me? I write my blog posts in markdown and can include HTML tags. How do I modify my source to mark a portion of the post as content for a "print" link (and generate the link)?
non-fiction tools blog food-writing
Increasingly often, if you Google for a recipe your search results will be full of long, image-rich blog posts that, somewhere in there, have the actual recipe you were looking for. Many of these have a "printer-friendly version" link to make that easier; I can get the stuff I need in my kitchen on paper easily, but the author doesn't have to cut back on the part that is interesting when cooking is not imminent. Here's an example of the basic idea -- if you click on the "print" link it starts your browser print dialogue with a subset of the page's content. But that site made a separate page for the print version, and I want to post the recipe once not twice.
As somebody who sometimes posts about cooking, including recipes, on my blog, I'd like to be able to offer that printer-friendly version, too -- but I don't want to have to create the content twice. Is there some script or HTML magic that can help me? I write my blog posts in markdown and can include HTML tags. How do I modify my source to mark a portion of the post as content for a "print" link (and generate the link)?
non-fiction tools blog food-writing
non-fiction tools blog food-writing
edited yesterday
Monica Cellio
asked yesterday
Monica Cellio♦Monica Cellio
17k23791
17k23791
4
I also blog recipes and want this feature! What a great question.
– Cyn
yesterday
2
@bruglesco single-sourcing two versions would be ok if necessary, but sometimes I edit after posting so having it just there once, with the print view generated on demand, would be ideal.
– Monica Cellio♦
22 hours ago
2
@user2397282 first, as someone else said, our scope includes publishing (and we have whole tags about blogging, publishing, software tools, and more). Second, the question is about publishing; the answers happen to be about CSS/jQuery; my question would be shot down on SO. Third, sites have overlapping scope; SO doesn't send all its database questions to DBA and its emacs questions to Emacs, we don't send our questions about publishing on Amazon to EBooks, and Workplace doesn't send its questions about difficult coworkers to Interpersonal Skills. If you have concerns, please raise on meta.
– Monica Cellio♦
8 hours ago
2
I agree this is an on topic question about publishing. Posts about details of blogs unrelated to Writing are off topic but this one is about the presentation of written material in interaction with the reader. I am voting "Leave Open."
– Cyn
8 hours ago
2
@undefined the answers here might lead me to ask followup questions on SO (especially since my CSS and JavaScript skills are somewhat limited). Questions sometimes end up having multiple pieces, not all of which necessarily belong on the same site; one of the strengths of the network, IMO, is that we can support that kind of multi-part question.
– Monica Cellio♦
8 hours ago
|
show 12 more comments
4
I also blog recipes and want this feature! What a great question.
– Cyn
yesterday
2
@bruglesco single-sourcing two versions would be ok if necessary, but sometimes I edit after posting so having it just there once, with the print view generated on demand, would be ideal.
– Monica Cellio♦
22 hours ago
2
@user2397282 first, as someone else said, our scope includes publishing (and we have whole tags about blogging, publishing, software tools, and more). Second, the question is about publishing; the answers happen to be about CSS/jQuery; my question would be shot down on SO. Third, sites have overlapping scope; SO doesn't send all its database questions to DBA and its emacs questions to Emacs, we don't send our questions about publishing on Amazon to EBooks, and Workplace doesn't send its questions about difficult coworkers to Interpersonal Skills. If you have concerns, please raise on meta.
– Monica Cellio♦
8 hours ago
2
I agree this is an on topic question about publishing. Posts about details of blogs unrelated to Writing are off topic but this one is about the presentation of written material in interaction with the reader. I am voting "Leave Open."
– Cyn
8 hours ago
2
@undefined the answers here might lead me to ask followup questions on SO (especially since my CSS and JavaScript skills are somewhat limited). Questions sometimes end up having multiple pieces, not all of which necessarily belong on the same site; one of the strengths of the network, IMO, is that we can support that kind of multi-part question.
– Monica Cellio♦
8 hours ago
4
4
I also blog recipes and want this feature! What a great question.
– Cyn
yesterday
I also blog recipes and want this feature! What a great question.
– Cyn
yesterday
2
2
@bruglesco single-sourcing two versions would be ok if necessary, but sometimes I edit after posting so having it just there once, with the print view generated on demand, would be ideal.
– Monica Cellio♦
22 hours ago
@bruglesco single-sourcing two versions would be ok if necessary, but sometimes I edit after posting so having it just there once, with the print view generated on demand, would be ideal.
– Monica Cellio♦
22 hours ago
2
2
@user2397282 first, as someone else said, our scope includes publishing (and we have whole tags about blogging, publishing, software tools, and more). Second, the question is about publishing; the answers happen to be about CSS/jQuery; my question would be shot down on SO. Third, sites have overlapping scope; SO doesn't send all its database questions to DBA and its emacs questions to Emacs, we don't send our questions about publishing on Amazon to EBooks, and Workplace doesn't send its questions about difficult coworkers to Interpersonal Skills. If you have concerns, please raise on meta.
– Monica Cellio♦
8 hours ago
@user2397282 first, as someone else said, our scope includes publishing (and we have whole tags about blogging, publishing, software tools, and more). Second, the question is about publishing; the answers happen to be about CSS/jQuery; my question would be shot down on SO. Third, sites have overlapping scope; SO doesn't send all its database questions to DBA and its emacs questions to Emacs, we don't send our questions about publishing on Amazon to EBooks, and Workplace doesn't send its questions about difficult coworkers to Interpersonal Skills. If you have concerns, please raise on meta.
– Monica Cellio♦
8 hours ago
2
2
I agree this is an on topic question about publishing. Posts about details of blogs unrelated to Writing are off topic but this one is about the presentation of written material in interaction with the reader. I am voting "Leave Open."
– Cyn
8 hours ago
I agree this is an on topic question about publishing. Posts about details of blogs unrelated to Writing are off topic but this one is about the presentation of written material in interaction with the reader. I am voting "Leave Open."
– Cyn
8 hours ago
2
2
@undefined the answers here might lead me to ask followup questions on SO (especially since my CSS and JavaScript skills are somewhat limited). Questions sometimes end up having multiple pieces, not all of which necessarily belong on the same site; one of the strengths of the network, IMO, is that we can support that kind of multi-part question.
– Monica Cellio♦
8 hours ago
@undefined the answers here might lead me to ask followup questions on SO (especially since my CSS and JavaScript skills are somewhat limited). Questions sometimes end up having multiple pieces, not all of which necessarily belong on the same site; one of the strengths of the network, IMO, is that we can support that kind of multi-part question.
– Monica Cellio♦
8 hours ago
|
show 12 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
CSS supports media queries since Level 2, Revision 1. That's from way back in 2011, so any modern web browser should support it.
If you're able to specify custom CSS, and apply custom CSS classes to your content, then you can define a CSS class such that the pictures and other ancilliary content is shown on screen, but only the actual recipe is printed on paper.
This way, you don't need to have a separate "printer friendly" page, because you're using CSS to define what "printer friendly" means for your particular content. Of course, it assumes that you have control over the CSS in the first place! The person visiting your web site just prints via their browser's normal "print" function.
Specifically, as discussed on MDN, you can either target print
media, or a specific characteristic of a media (a feature). For the former, you'd add something like
@media print
img.food-photo display: none;
body color: black;
to hide food-photo
class img
s and set the text color to black
when the rendering media is identified as print
.
For the latter, you can target non-color-capable media (whether screen, print, or otherwise) by writing something like
@media not color /* untested, but looks like it should work */
body color: black;
to set the text color to black
where color is not supported.
These can be combined to form even more complex rules, and of course the normal CSS inheritance rules apply as well, so you can override only those attributes that need to be different between, say, print and non-print.
You might also be interested in CSS feature queries, which look to be similar but geared toward even more specific feature support; for example, one example shows how to apply specific CSS depending on whether display: flex
is supported. This looks more useful for when you want to know that the user agent (browser) supports a feature, than for targetting specific media types or capabilities.
I came across a Stack Overflow question at What does @media screen and (max-width: 1024px) mean in CSS? which has some more complex examples that you may find enlightening.
I think that the biggest downside to using CSS for this is that it leaves the visitor with no easy way to print the whole page including the "narrative/journey" if that's what they want to do. There are tricks that one can use, but those by their very nature are rather technical.
Does this get rid of things like the background, header, footer, and sidebars? Or does it just get rid of images?
– Cyn
yesterday
7
How can a reader discover that the page will print well? I'd cut and paste the relevant content into an editor and try to print from there, and only see if the print is tolerable if cut-and-paste is broken somehow.
– Jeffrey Bosboom
18 hours ago
2
@JeffreyBosboom If the user presses print preview, they will see a rendering first. This dialog can also be opened with a link, IIRC.
– Graipher
17 hours ago
5
I'd be very surprised if the page printed differently as it is shown on screen. The general expectation is that the "print" function will print the page as it is, and definitely not after stripping away certain parts (besides ads). Or consider what would happen if someone actually wanted to print the whole story with all the fluff and how would they achieve that.
– zovits
13 hours ago
1
@undefined At the start! The whole point of the exercise is so that people don't have to trawl through huge amounts of fluff to get to the information you need, and you're putting the information they need after all that fluff.
– David Richerby
8 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
You could keep the recipe in its own source file. recipeXYZ.html
for example. You then dynamically add that source to both your blog post as well as your simplified print page. My jQuery is a bit rusty but something from this SO question should work well.
$("#recipeDiv").load("recipeXYZ.html");
Now you can print from your original page, with its images, or from your print page, which is more printer friendly. You can also modify your recipe from one central location and have it update both pages as they both always receive their content from the same source.
The print page can even be generated dynamically.
<span id="printPreview">print preview</span>
$("#printPreview").click(function()
var w = window.open(); // you can change the dimenstions of the window here.
w.document.open().write("recipeXYZ.hml");
// you probably want to create the actual print button here.
);
8
If you go this route, please for the love of all things holy make sure it works with non-Javascript-enabled browsers. With all the carp that gets fed as Javascript these days, quite a number of users run their browsers with varying Javascript disabling extensions, including the ilk of NoScript and uMatrix. Graceful degredation can make a site using this technique at least usable to those users as well. (Obviously, disabling Javascript trades off some functionality, and anyone who does it likely realizes that -- but the main content should at least display without Javascript.)
– a CVn♦
16 hours ago
@aCVn good point. Will update my answer accordingly when I get a chance.
– bruglesco
7 hours ago
add a comment |
TL;DR: Put the important stuff atop.
This isn't the technical solution you were looking for, but it's another way to give both types of readers what they want.
Readers who want the full story will read your blog post regardless of where you place the actual recipe. So why not place it right atop, maybe prefaced with a "TL;DR" (too long; didn't read)? Busy readers who just came for the recipe will immediately find what they are looking for and read no further. They can also print your recipe by only selecting the first page.
New contributor
1
This also avoids any technical issues like disabled javascript, broken css, additional effort of learning how to do it etc. Btw, I love that your answer starts with a TL;DR
– lucidbrot
4 hours ago
add a comment |
WordPress Answer
If you're using WordPress, I've got really good news for you. The example that you provided is using a WordPress plugin: https://wordpress.org/plugins/easyrecipe/
Adding a recipe and getting the Recipe View microdata correct is not
only time consuming but it’s also pretty geeky and most cooks prefer
to cook and share, not code webpages.
Enter EasyRecipe.
Non-Wordpress Answer
If you are not using Wordpress I would give you 3 suggestions
If I was blogging recipes, what I would do is that I would create a separate pdf of the easy view and just link to it. While that doesn't synchronize, that's what I would do.
If you really want an html page instead of a pdf, You can create a separate blog. And the "Image and wordy" blog can reference the "easy" recipe blog.
- Finally, if neither of those work because you REALLY want the data synced, I would use the other answers already given to use the @media print styling.
add a comment |
You use @media
rules in your CSS style sheets to define which html tags you want to print and which are only visible on screen. E.g.
@media print
.stuff-you-don't-want-to-print
display: none;
To print the current browser window, you print it with JavaScript, e.g.
<a href="javascript:window.print()">Print</a>
The page you link to actually provides a separate web page to print. You can see that the URL of the page you print is different than the URL of the blog post. And if you look at the source code the pages are different. So in fact your "example" is an example of what you don't want, when you say that "[you] don't want to have to create the content twice". That page has created the content twice.
If you don't want to create the content twice, use media queries.
1
About the example -- yeah, I meant that that's the effect I want, but not that implementation. I"ll clarify. As for your meta question, software questions about publishing are fine here; we even have a whole tag, plus several others (like scrivener and dita).
– Monica Cellio♦
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "166"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwriting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f44450%2fwhen-blogging-recipes-how-can-i-support-both-readers-who-want-the-narrative-jou%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
CSS supports media queries since Level 2, Revision 1. That's from way back in 2011, so any modern web browser should support it.
If you're able to specify custom CSS, and apply custom CSS classes to your content, then you can define a CSS class such that the pictures and other ancilliary content is shown on screen, but only the actual recipe is printed on paper.
This way, you don't need to have a separate "printer friendly" page, because you're using CSS to define what "printer friendly" means for your particular content. Of course, it assumes that you have control over the CSS in the first place! The person visiting your web site just prints via their browser's normal "print" function.
Specifically, as discussed on MDN, you can either target print
media, or a specific characteristic of a media (a feature). For the former, you'd add something like
@media print
img.food-photo display: none;
body color: black;
to hide food-photo
class img
s and set the text color to black
when the rendering media is identified as print
.
For the latter, you can target non-color-capable media (whether screen, print, or otherwise) by writing something like
@media not color /* untested, but looks like it should work */
body color: black;
to set the text color to black
where color is not supported.
These can be combined to form even more complex rules, and of course the normal CSS inheritance rules apply as well, so you can override only those attributes that need to be different between, say, print and non-print.
You might also be interested in CSS feature queries, which look to be similar but geared toward even more specific feature support; for example, one example shows how to apply specific CSS depending on whether display: flex
is supported. This looks more useful for when you want to know that the user agent (browser) supports a feature, than for targetting specific media types or capabilities.
I came across a Stack Overflow question at What does @media screen and (max-width: 1024px) mean in CSS? which has some more complex examples that you may find enlightening.
I think that the biggest downside to using CSS for this is that it leaves the visitor with no easy way to print the whole page including the "narrative/journey" if that's what they want to do. There are tricks that one can use, but those by their very nature are rather technical.
Does this get rid of things like the background, header, footer, and sidebars? Or does it just get rid of images?
– Cyn
yesterday
7
How can a reader discover that the page will print well? I'd cut and paste the relevant content into an editor and try to print from there, and only see if the print is tolerable if cut-and-paste is broken somehow.
– Jeffrey Bosboom
18 hours ago
2
@JeffreyBosboom If the user presses print preview, they will see a rendering first. This dialog can also be opened with a link, IIRC.
– Graipher
17 hours ago
5
I'd be very surprised if the page printed differently as it is shown on screen. The general expectation is that the "print" function will print the page as it is, and definitely not after stripping away certain parts (besides ads). Or consider what would happen if someone actually wanted to print the whole story with all the fluff and how would they achieve that.
– zovits
13 hours ago
1
@undefined At the start! The whole point of the exercise is so that people don't have to trawl through huge amounts of fluff to get to the information you need, and you're putting the information they need after all that fluff.
– David Richerby
8 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
CSS supports media queries since Level 2, Revision 1. That's from way back in 2011, so any modern web browser should support it.
If you're able to specify custom CSS, and apply custom CSS classes to your content, then you can define a CSS class such that the pictures and other ancilliary content is shown on screen, but only the actual recipe is printed on paper.
This way, you don't need to have a separate "printer friendly" page, because you're using CSS to define what "printer friendly" means for your particular content. Of course, it assumes that you have control over the CSS in the first place! The person visiting your web site just prints via their browser's normal "print" function.
Specifically, as discussed on MDN, you can either target print
media, or a specific characteristic of a media (a feature). For the former, you'd add something like
@media print
img.food-photo display: none;
body color: black;
to hide food-photo
class img
s and set the text color to black
when the rendering media is identified as print
.
For the latter, you can target non-color-capable media (whether screen, print, or otherwise) by writing something like
@media not color /* untested, but looks like it should work */
body color: black;
to set the text color to black
where color is not supported.
These can be combined to form even more complex rules, and of course the normal CSS inheritance rules apply as well, so you can override only those attributes that need to be different between, say, print and non-print.
You might also be interested in CSS feature queries, which look to be similar but geared toward even more specific feature support; for example, one example shows how to apply specific CSS depending on whether display: flex
is supported. This looks more useful for when you want to know that the user agent (browser) supports a feature, than for targetting specific media types or capabilities.
I came across a Stack Overflow question at What does @media screen and (max-width: 1024px) mean in CSS? which has some more complex examples that you may find enlightening.
I think that the biggest downside to using CSS for this is that it leaves the visitor with no easy way to print the whole page including the "narrative/journey" if that's what they want to do. There are tricks that one can use, but those by their very nature are rather technical.
Does this get rid of things like the background, header, footer, and sidebars? Or does it just get rid of images?
– Cyn
yesterday
7
How can a reader discover that the page will print well? I'd cut and paste the relevant content into an editor and try to print from there, and only see if the print is tolerable if cut-and-paste is broken somehow.
– Jeffrey Bosboom
18 hours ago
2
@JeffreyBosboom If the user presses print preview, they will see a rendering first. This dialog can also be opened with a link, IIRC.
– Graipher
17 hours ago
5
I'd be very surprised if the page printed differently as it is shown on screen. The general expectation is that the "print" function will print the page as it is, and definitely not after stripping away certain parts (besides ads). Or consider what would happen if someone actually wanted to print the whole story with all the fluff and how would they achieve that.
– zovits
13 hours ago
1
@undefined At the start! The whole point of the exercise is so that people don't have to trawl through huge amounts of fluff to get to the information you need, and you're putting the information they need after all that fluff.
– David Richerby
8 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
CSS supports media queries since Level 2, Revision 1. That's from way back in 2011, so any modern web browser should support it.
If you're able to specify custom CSS, and apply custom CSS classes to your content, then you can define a CSS class such that the pictures and other ancilliary content is shown on screen, but only the actual recipe is printed on paper.
This way, you don't need to have a separate "printer friendly" page, because you're using CSS to define what "printer friendly" means for your particular content. Of course, it assumes that you have control over the CSS in the first place! The person visiting your web site just prints via their browser's normal "print" function.
Specifically, as discussed on MDN, you can either target print
media, or a specific characteristic of a media (a feature). For the former, you'd add something like
@media print
img.food-photo display: none;
body color: black;
to hide food-photo
class img
s and set the text color to black
when the rendering media is identified as print
.
For the latter, you can target non-color-capable media (whether screen, print, or otherwise) by writing something like
@media not color /* untested, but looks like it should work */
body color: black;
to set the text color to black
where color is not supported.
These can be combined to form even more complex rules, and of course the normal CSS inheritance rules apply as well, so you can override only those attributes that need to be different between, say, print and non-print.
You might also be interested in CSS feature queries, which look to be similar but geared toward even more specific feature support; for example, one example shows how to apply specific CSS depending on whether display: flex
is supported. This looks more useful for when you want to know that the user agent (browser) supports a feature, than for targetting specific media types or capabilities.
I came across a Stack Overflow question at What does @media screen and (max-width: 1024px) mean in CSS? which has some more complex examples that you may find enlightening.
I think that the biggest downside to using CSS for this is that it leaves the visitor with no easy way to print the whole page including the "narrative/journey" if that's what they want to do. There are tricks that one can use, but those by their very nature are rather technical.
CSS supports media queries since Level 2, Revision 1. That's from way back in 2011, so any modern web browser should support it.
If you're able to specify custom CSS, and apply custom CSS classes to your content, then you can define a CSS class such that the pictures and other ancilliary content is shown on screen, but only the actual recipe is printed on paper.
This way, you don't need to have a separate "printer friendly" page, because you're using CSS to define what "printer friendly" means for your particular content. Of course, it assumes that you have control over the CSS in the first place! The person visiting your web site just prints via their browser's normal "print" function.
Specifically, as discussed on MDN, you can either target print
media, or a specific characteristic of a media (a feature). For the former, you'd add something like
@media print
img.food-photo display: none;
body color: black;
to hide food-photo
class img
s and set the text color to black
when the rendering media is identified as print
.
For the latter, you can target non-color-capable media (whether screen, print, or otherwise) by writing something like
@media not color /* untested, but looks like it should work */
body color: black;
to set the text color to black
where color is not supported.
These can be combined to form even more complex rules, and of course the normal CSS inheritance rules apply as well, so you can override only those attributes that need to be different between, say, print and non-print.
You might also be interested in CSS feature queries, which look to be similar but geared toward even more specific feature support; for example, one example shows how to apply specific CSS depending on whether display: flex
is supported. This looks more useful for when you want to know that the user agent (browser) supports a feature, than for targetting specific media types or capabilities.
I came across a Stack Overflow question at What does @media screen and (max-width: 1024px) mean in CSS? which has some more complex examples that you may find enlightening.
I think that the biggest downside to using CSS for this is that it leaves the visitor with no easy way to print the whole page including the "narrative/journey" if that's what they want to do. There are tricks that one can use, but those by their very nature are rather technical.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
a CVn♦a CVn
2,83231734
2,83231734
Does this get rid of things like the background, header, footer, and sidebars? Or does it just get rid of images?
– Cyn
yesterday
7
How can a reader discover that the page will print well? I'd cut and paste the relevant content into an editor and try to print from there, and only see if the print is tolerable if cut-and-paste is broken somehow.
– Jeffrey Bosboom
18 hours ago
2
@JeffreyBosboom If the user presses print preview, they will see a rendering first. This dialog can also be opened with a link, IIRC.
– Graipher
17 hours ago
5
I'd be very surprised if the page printed differently as it is shown on screen. The general expectation is that the "print" function will print the page as it is, and definitely not after stripping away certain parts (besides ads). Or consider what would happen if someone actually wanted to print the whole story with all the fluff and how would they achieve that.
– zovits
13 hours ago
1
@undefined At the start! The whole point of the exercise is so that people don't have to trawl through huge amounts of fluff to get to the information you need, and you're putting the information they need after all that fluff.
– David Richerby
8 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
Does this get rid of things like the background, header, footer, and sidebars? Or does it just get rid of images?
– Cyn
yesterday
7
How can a reader discover that the page will print well? I'd cut and paste the relevant content into an editor and try to print from there, and only see if the print is tolerable if cut-and-paste is broken somehow.
– Jeffrey Bosboom
18 hours ago
2
@JeffreyBosboom If the user presses print preview, they will see a rendering first. This dialog can also be opened with a link, IIRC.
– Graipher
17 hours ago
5
I'd be very surprised if the page printed differently as it is shown on screen. The general expectation is that the "print" function will print the page as it is, and definitely not after stripping away certain parts (besides ads). Or consider what would happen if someone actually wanted to print the whole story with all the fluff and how would they achieve that.
– zovits
13 hours ago
1
@undefined At the start! The whole point of the exercise is so that people don't have to trawl through huge amounts of fluff to get to the information you need, and you're putting the information they need after all that fluff.
– David Richerby
8 hours ago
Does this get rid of things like the background, header, footer, and sidebars? Or does it just get rid of images?
– Cyn
yesterday
Does this get rid of things like the background, header, footer, and sidebars? Or does it just get rid of images?
– Cyn
yesterday
7
7
How can a reader discover that the page will print well? I'd cut and paste the relevant content into an editor and try to print from there, and only see if the print is tolerable if cut-and-paste is broken somehow.
– Jeffrey Bosboom
18 hours ago
How can a reader discover that the page will print well? I'd cut and paste the relevant content into an editor and try to print from there, and only see if the print is tolerable if cut-and-paste is broken somehow.
– Jeffrey Bosboom
18 hours ago
2
2
@JeffreyBosboom If the user presses print preview, they will see a rendering first. This dialog can also be opened with a link, IIRC.
– Graipher
17 hours ago
@JeffreyBosboom If the user presses print preview, they will see a rendering first. This dialog can also be opened with a link, IIRC.
– Graipher
17 hours ago
5
5
I'd be very surprised if the page printed differently as it is shown on screen. The general expectation is that the "print" function will print the page as it is, and definitely not after stripping away certain parts (besides ads). Or consider what would happen if someone actually wanted to print the whole story with all the fluff and how would they achieve that.
– zovits
13 hours ago
I'd be very surprised if the page printed differently as it is shown on screen. The general expectation is that the "print" function will print the page as it is, and definitely not after stripping away certain parts (besides ads). Or consider what would happen if someone actually wanted to print the whole story with all the fluff and how would they achieve that.
– zovits
13 hours ago
1
1
@undefined At the start! The whole point of the exercise is so that people don't have to trawl through huge amounts of fluff to get to the information you need, and you're putting the information they need after all that fluff.
– David Richerby
8 hours ago
@undefined At the start! The whole point of the exercise is so that people don't have to trawl through huge amounts of fluff to get to the information you need, and you're putting the information they need after all that fluff.
– David Richerby
8 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
You could keep the recipe in its own source file. recipeXYZ.html
for example. You then dynamically add that source to both your blog post as well as your simplified print page. My jQuery is a bit rusty but something from this SO question should work well.
$("#recipeDiv").load("recipeXYZ.html");
Now you can print from your original page, with its images, or from your print page, which is more printer friendly. You can also modify your recipe from one central location and have it update both pages as they both always receive their content from the same source.
The print page can even be generated dynamically.
<span id="printPreview">print preview</span>
$("#printPreview").click(function()
var w = window.open(); // you can change the dimenstions of the window here.
w.document.open().write("recipeXYZ.hml");
// you probably want to create the actual print button here.
);
8
If you go this route, please for the love of all things holy make sure it works with non-Javascript-enabled browsers. With all the carp that gets fed as Javascript these days, quite a number of users run their browsers with varying Javascript disabling extensions, including the ilk of NoScript and uMatrix. Graceful degredation can make a site using this technique at least usable to those users as well. (Obviously, disabling Javascript trades off some functionality, and anyone who does it likely realizes that -- but the main content should at least display without Javascript.)
– a CVn♦
16 hours ago
@aCVn good point. Will update my answer accordingly when I get a chance.
– bruglesco
7 hours ago
add a comment |
You could keep the recipe in its own source file. recipeXYZ.html
for example. You then dynamically add that source to both your blog post as well as your simplified print page. My jQuery is a bit rusty but something from this SO question should work well.
$("#recipeDiv").load("recipeXYZ.html");
Now you can print from your original page, with its images, or from your print page, which is more printer friendly. You can also modify your recipe from one central location and have it update both pages as they both always receive their content from the same source.
The print page can even be generated dynamically.
<span id="printPreview">print preview</span>
$("#printPreview").click(function()
var w = window.open(); // you can change the dimenstions of the window here.
w.document.open().write("recipeXYZ.hml");
// you probably want to create the actual print button here.
);
8
If you go this route, please for the love of all things holy make sure it works with non-Javascript-enabled browsers. With all the carp that gets fed as Javascript these days, quite a number of users run their browsers with varying Javascript disabling extensions, including the ilk of NoScript and uMatrix. Graceful degredation can make a site using this technique at least usable to those users as well. (Obviously, disabling Javascript trades off some functionality, and anyone who does it likely realizes that -- but the main content should at least display without Javascript.)
– a CVn♦
16 hours ago
@aCVn good point. Will update my answer accordingly when I get a chance.
– bruglesco
7 hours ago
add a comment |
You could keep the recipe in its own source file. recipeXYZ.html
for example. You then dynamically add that source to both your blog post as well as your simplified print page. My jQuery is a bit rusty but something from this SO question should work well.
$("#recipeDiv").load("recipeXYZ.html");
Now you can print from your original page, with its images, or from your print page, which is more printer friendly. You can also modify your recipe from one central location and have it update both pages as they both always receive their content from the same source.
The print page can even be generated dynamically.
<span id="printPreview">print preview</span>
$("#printPreview").click(function()
var w = window.open(); // you can change the dimenstions of the window here.
w.document.open().write("recipeXYZ.hml");
// you probably want to create the actual print button here.
);
You could keep the recipe in its own source file. recipeXYZ.html
for example. You then dynamically add that source to both your blog post as well as your simplified print page. My jQuery is a bit rusty but something from this SO question should work well.
$("#recipeDiv").load("recipeXYZ.html");
Now you can print from your original page, with its images, or from your print page, which is more printer friendly. You can also modify your recipe from one central location and have it update both pages as they both always receive their content from the same source.
The print page can even be generated dynamically.
<span id="printPreview">print preview</span>
$("#printPreview").click(function()
var w = window.open(); // you can change the dimenstions of the window here.
w.document.open().write("recipeXYZ.hml");
// you probably want to create the actual print button here.
);
edited 21 hours ago
answered 21 hours ago
bruglescobruglesco
2,526742
2,526742
8
If you go this route, please for the love of all things holy make sure it works with non-Javascript-enabled browsers. With all the carp that gets fed as Javascript these days, quite a number of users run their browsers with varying Javascript disabling extensions, including the ilk of NoScript and uMatrix. Graceful degredation can make a site using this technique at least usable to those users as well. (Obviously, disabling Javascript trades off some functionality, and anyone who does it likely realizes that -- but the main content should at least display without Javascript.)
– a CVn♦
16 hours ago
@aCVn good point. Will update my answer accordingly when I get a chance.
– bruglesco
7 hours ago
add a comment |
8
If you go this route, please for the love of all things holy make sure it works with non-Javascript-enabled browsers. With all the carp that gets fed as Javascript these days, quite a number of users run their browsers with varying Javascript disabling extensions, including the ilk of NoScript and uMatrix. Graceful degredation can make a site using this technique at least usable to those users as well. (Obviously, disabling Javascript trades off some functionality, and anyone who does it likely realizes that -- but the main content should at least display without Javascript.)
– a CVn♦
16 hours ago
@aCVn good point. Will update my answer accordingly when I get a chance.
– bruglesco
7 hours ago
8
8
If you go this route, please for the love of all things holy make sure it works with non-Javascript-enabled browsers. With all the carp that gets fed as Javascript these days, quite a number of users run their browsers with varying Javascript disabling extensions, including the ilk of NoScript and uMatrix. Graceful degredation can make a site using this technique at least usable to those users as well. (Obviously, disabling Javascript trades off some functionality, and anyone who does it likely realizes that -- but the main content should at least display without Javascript.)
– a CVn♦
16 hours ago
If you go this route, please for the love of all things holy make sure it works with non-Javascript-enabled browsers. With all the carp that gets fed as Javascript these days, quite a number of users run their browsers with varying Javascript disabling extensions, including the ilk of NoScript and uMatrix. Graceful degredation can make a site using this technique at least usable to those users as well. (Obviously, disabling Javascript trades off some functionality, and anyone who does it likely realizes that -- but the main content should at least display without Javascript.)
– a CVn♦
16 hours ago
@aCVn good point. Will update my answer accordingly when I get a chance.
– bruglesco
7 hours ago
@aCVn good point. Will update my answer accordingly when I get a chance.
– bruglesco
7 hours ago
add a comment |
TL;DR: Put the important stuff atop.
This isn't the technical solution you were looking for, but it's another way to give both types of readers what they want.
Readers who want the full story will read your blog post regardless of where you place the actual recipe. So why not place it right atop, maybe prefaced with a "TL;DR" (too long; didn't read)? Busy readers who just came for the recipe will immediately find what they are looking for and read no further. They can also print your recipe by only selecting the first page.
New contributor
1
This also avoids any technical issues like disabled javascript, broken css, additional effort of learning how to do it etc. Btw, I love that your answer starts with a TL;DR
– lucidbrot
4 hours ago
add a comment |
TL;DR: Put the important stuff atop.
This isn't the technical solution you were looking for, but it's another way to give both types of readers what they want.
Readers who want the full story will read your blog post regardless of where you place the actual recipe. So why not place it right atop, maybe prefaced with a "TL;DR" (too long; didn't read)? Busy readers who just came for the recipe will immediately find what they are looking for and read no further. They can also print your recipe by only selecting the first page.
New contributor
1
This also avoids any technical issues like disabled javascript, broken css, additional effort of learning how to do it etc. Btw, I love that your answer starts with a TL;DR
– lucidbrot
4 hours ago
add a comment |
TL;DR: Put the important stuff atop.
This isn't the technical solution you were looking for, but it's another way to give both types of readers what they want.
Readers who want the full story will read your blog post regardless of where you place the actual recipe. So why not place it right atop, maybe prefaced with a "TL;DR" (too long; didn't read)? Busy readers who just came for the recipe will immediately find what they are looking for and read no further. They can also print your recipe by only selecting the first page.
New contributor
TL;DR: Put the important stuff atop.
This isn't the technical solution you were looking for, but it's another way to give both types of readers what they want.
Readers who want the full story will read your blog post regardless of where you place the actual recipe. So why not place it right atop, maybe prefaced with a "TL;DR" (too long; didn't read)? Busy readers who just came for the recipe will immediately find what they are looking for and read no further. They can also print your recipe by only selecting the first page.
New contributor
edited 6 hours ago
New contributor
answered 7 hours ago
henninghenning
1414
1414
New contributor
New contributor
1
This also avoids any technical issues like disabled javascript, broken css, additional effort of learning how to do it etc. Btw, I love that your answer starts with a TL;DR
– lucidbrot
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1
This also avoids any technical issues like disabled javascript, broken css, additional effort of learning how to do it etc. Btw, I love that your answer starts with a TL;DR
– lucidbrot
4 hours ago
1
1
This also avoids any technical issues like disabled javascript, broken css, additional effort of learning how to do it etc. Btw, I love that your answer starts with a TL;DR
– lucidbrot
4 hours ago
This also avoids any technical issues like disabled javascript, broken css, additional effort of learning how to do it etc. Btw, I love that your answer starts with a TL;DR
– lucidbrot
4 hours ago
add a comment |
WordPress Answer
If you're using WordPress, I've got really good news for you. The example that you provided is using a WordPress plugin: https://wordpress.org/plugins/easyrecipe/
Adding a recipe and getting the Recipe View microdata correct is not
only time consuming but it’s also pretty geeky and most cooks prefer
to cook and share, not code webpages.
Enter EasyRecipe.
Non-Wordpress Answer
If you are not using Wordpress I would give you 3 suggestions
If I was blogging recipes, what I would do is that I would create a separate pdf of the easy view and just link to it. While that doesn't synchronize, that's what I would do.
If you really want an html page instead of a pdf, You can create a separate blog. And the "Image and wordy" blog can reference the "easy" recipe blog.
- Finally, if neither of those work because you REALLY want the data synced, I would use the other answers already given to use the @media print styling.
add a comment |
WordPress Answer
If you're using WordPress, I've got really good news for you. The example that you provided is using a WordPress plugin: https://wordpress.org/plugins/easyrecipe/
Adding a recipe and getting the Recipe View microdata correct is not
only time consuming but it’s also pretty geeky and most cooks prefer
to cook and share, not code webpages.
Enter EasyRecipe.
Non-Wordpress Answer
If you are not using Wordpress I would give you 3 suggestions
If I was blogging recipes, what I would do is that I would create a separate pdf of the easy view and just link to it. While that doesn't synchronize, that's what I would do.
If you really want an html page instead of a pdf, You can create a separate blog. And the "Image and wordy" blog can reference the "easy" recipe blog.
- Finally, if neither of those work because you REALLY want the data synced, I would use the other answers already given to use the @media print styling.
add a comment |
WordPress Answer
If you're using WordPress, I've got really good news for you. The example that you provided is using a WordPress plugin: https://wordpress.org/plugins/easyrecipe/
Adding a recipe and getting the Recipe View microdata correct is not
only time consuming but it’s also pretty geeky and most cooks prefer
to cook and share, not code webpages.
Enter EasyRecipe.
Non-Wordpress Answer
If you are not using Wordpress I would give you 3 suggestions
If I was blogging recipes, what I would do is that I would create a separate pdf of the easy view and just link to it. While that doesn't synchronize, that's what I would do.
If you really want an html page instead of a pdf, You can create a separate blog. And the "Image and wordy" blog can reference the "easy" recipe blog.
- Finally, if neither of those work because you REALLY want the data synced, I would use the other answers already given to use the @media print styling.
WordPress Answer
If you're using WordPress, I've got really good news for you. The example that you provided is using a WordPress plugin: https://wordpress.org/plugins/easyrecipe/
Adding a recipe and getting the Recipe View microdata correct is not
only time consuming but it’s also pretty geeky and most cooks prefer
to cook and share, not code webpages.
Enter EasyRecipe.
Non-Wordpress Answer
If you are not using Wordpress I would give you 3 suggestions
If I was blogging recipes, what I would do is that I would create a separate pdf of the easy view and just link to it. While that doesn't synchronize, that's what I would do.
If you really want an html page instead of a pdf, You can create a separate blog. And the "Image and wordy" blog can reference the "easy" recipe blog.
- Finally, if neither of those work because you REALLY want the data synced, I would use the other answers already given to use the @media print styling.
answered 7 hours ago
DustinDustin
1713
1713
add a comment |
add a comment |
You use @media
rules in your CSS style sheets to define which html tags you want to print and which are only visible on screen. E.g.
@media print
.stuff-you-don't-want-to-print
display: none;
To print the current browser window, you print it with JavaScript, e.g.
<a href="javascript:window.print()">Print</a>
The page you link to actually provides a separate web page to print. You can see that the URL of the page you print is different than the URL of the blog post. And if you look at the source code the pages are different. So in fact your "example" is an example of what you don't want, when you say that "[you] don't want to have to create the content twice". That page has created the content twice.
If you don't want to create the content twice, use media queries.
1
About the example -- yeah, I meant that that's the effect I want, but not that implementation. I"ll clarify. As for your meta question, software questions about publishing are fine here; we even have a whole tag, plus several others (like scrivener and dita).
– Monica Cellio♦
yesterday
add a comment |
You use @media
rules in your CSS style sheets to define which html tags you want to print and which are only visible on screen. E.g.
@media print
.stuff-you-don't-want-to-print
display: none;
To print the current browser window, you print it with JavaScript, e.g.
<a href="javascript:window.print()">Print</a>
The page you link to actually provides a separate web page to print. You can see that the URL of the page you print is different than the URL of the blog post. And if you look at the source code the pages are different. So in fact your "example" is an example of what you don't want, when you say that "[you] don't want to have to create the content twice". That page has created the content twice.
If you don't want to create the content twice, use media queries.
1
About the example -- yeah, I meant that that's the effect I want, but not that implementation. I"ll clarify. As for your meta question, software questions about publishing are fine here; we even have a whole tag, plus several others (like scrivener and dita).
– Monica Cellio♦
yesterday
add a comment |
You use @media
rules in your CSS style sheets to define which html tags you want to print and which are only visible on screen. E.g.
@media print
.stuff-you-don't-want-to-print
display: none;
To print the current browser window, you print it with JavaScript, e.g.
<a href="javascript:window.print()">Print</a>
The page you link to actually provides a separate web page to print. You can see that the URL of the page you print is different than the URL of the blog post. And if you look at the source code the pages are different. So in fact your "example" is an example of what you don't want, when you say that "[you] don't want to have to create the content twice". That page has created the content twice.
If you don't want to create the content twice, use media queries.
You use @media
rules in your CSS style sheets to define which html tags you want to print and which are only visible on screen. E.g.
@media print
.stuff-you-don't-want-to-print
display: none;
To print the current browser window, you print it with JavaScript, e.g.
<a href="javascript:window.print()">Print</a>
The page you link to actually provides a separate web page to print. You can see that the URL of the page you print is different than the URL of the blog post. And if you look at the source code the pages are different. So in fact your "example" is an example of what you don't want, when you say that "[you] don't want to have to create the content twice". That page has created the content twice.
If you don't want to create the content twice, use media queries.
edited yesterday
bruglesco
2,526742
2,526742
answered yesterday
user37740
1
About the example -- yeah, I meant that that's the effect I want, but not that implementation. I"ll clarify. As for your meta question, software questions about publishing are fine here; we even have a whole tag, plus several others (like scrivener and dita).
– Monica Cellio♦
yesterday
add a comment |
1
About the example -- yeah, I meant that that's the effect I want, but not that implementation. I"ll clarify. As for your meta question, software questions about publishing are fine here; we even have a whole tag, plus several others (like scrivener and dita).
– Monica Cellio♦
yesterday
1
1
About the example -- yeah, I meant that that's the effect I want, but not that implementation. I"ll clarify. As for your meta question, software questions about publishing are fine here; we even have a whole tag, plus several others (like scrivener and dita).
– Monica Cellio♦
yesterday
About the example -- yeah, I meant that that's the effect I want, but not that implementation. I"ll clarify. As for your meta question, software questions about publishing are fine here; we even have a whole tag, plus several others (like scrivener and dita).
– Monica Cellio♦
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Writing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwriting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f44450%2fwhen-blogging-recipes-how-can-i-support-both-readers-who-want-the-narrative-jou%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
I also blog recipes and want this feature! What a great question.
– Cyn
yesterday
2
@bruglesco single-sourcing two versions would be ok if necessary, but sometimes I edit after posting so having it just there once, with the print view generated on demand, would be ideal.
– Monica Cellio♦
22 hours ago
2
@user2397282 first, as someone else said, our scope includes publishing (and we have whole tags about blogging, publishing, software tools, and more). Second, the question is about publishing; the answers happen to be about CSS/jQuery; my question would be shot down on SO. Third, sites have overlapping scope; SO doesn't send all its database questions to DBA and its emacs questions to Emacs, we don't send our questions about publishing on Amazon to EBooks, and Workplace doesn't send its questions about difficult coworkers to Interpersonal Skills. If you have concerns, please raise on meta.
– Monica Cellio♦
8 hours ago
2
I agree this is an on topic question about publishing. Posts about details of blogs unrelated to Writing are off topic but this one is about the presentation of written material in interaction with the reader. I am voting "Leave Open."
– Cyn
8 hours ago
2
@undefined the answers here might lead me to ask followup questions on SO (especially since my CSS and JavaScript skills are somewhat limited). Questions sometimes end up having multiple pieces, not all of which necessarily belong on the same site; one of the strengths of the network, IMO, is that we can support that kind of multi-part question.
– Monica Cellio♦
8 hours ago