What was discovered may not be considered a bug, as not displaying links below embedded videos that are no longer available on YouTube might be considered expected from this script. However, when I found the time to work on this, I found that the script would add links below videos that are no longer available on YouTube when the option to display video titles is not selected. I needed to find a more appropriate way for this situation to be handled, as the script did not handle this case consistently.

I decided to update the script so that it will always add links below embedded YouTube videos that are no longer available on YouTube. However, it will also add information saying that the title of the video is not available in this case. This information will not be displayed if the option to display titles is not selected. I personally think that this may be considered an appropriate way to handle this situation. However, some might prefer that information on whether or not the video is available always be included in the links added by the script.

If any users have any ideas on better ways to handle this situation, I would like to know what they are. Once again, suggestions from end users will likely be implemented.

This Greasemonkey script that I wrote did not work with embedded videos that were embedded a certain way, and so I made the necessary corrections to it. I also added a feature to it so that it would not add links to YouTube pages on the main Google Video page. This was done because there already is a link below the embedded video that is featured on that page to the page on YouTube where that video can be found. These updates were quite minor, although they needed to be made.

In version 0.2.0 of the Firefox extension that I wrote, I added a menu option that brings up a dialog box. However, it was only after releasing this version of the extension that I thought that I should add an ellipsis to the end of the title of this menu option. I could have checked the extension more thoroughly for errors both in functionality and in the user interface before releasing version 0.2.0 of the extension. However, as is it often said that those who write this kind of software should release early and release often, I chose to release it before I could check for all errors that I might have made in writing it.

I am currently trying to decide on what kind of software to write next, and I am not sure what my focus should be. However, I am sure that I will continue to make the necessary updates to what I have already written.

This second error was one that I discovered after Googling myself. This egosurfing indirectly led me to this page, which actually has information on this script. However, the page actually contains an embedded YouTube video to which my script did not add a link. After checking the parameters in the tags used to embed the video, I found that the .SWF extension was added to the end of the URL of the YouTube page where the video can be found. Therefore, I once again needed to update this script to handle a case that I did not think it would need to handle. Once again, however, only slight modifications needed to be made to correct this error.

This script has been publicly available for a long time. And during the time that it had been publicly available, errors like these had either not been found or were never reported. I certainly hope that the former rather than the latter is the case, for obvious reasons. However, in any case, I will try to decrease the number of pages on the web that have YouTube videos embedded in them with which this script will not work.

And recently, an event occurred that made it a priority for me to make one of these updates to one of my scripts. I actually considered adding the titles of the YouTube videos embedded into web pages to the links that are added below these videos when this script is used. In addition to being able to visit the page on YouTube on which the embedded video can be found, one may want to know the title of the embedded video before playing it. And after a user requested that I add this feature to this script, updating this script became my new highest priority.

This idea was one that I originally had when I found out about this script that adds titles of videos to the links to YouTube videos. I thought that it was a very good idea to make this script available, and it had been downloaded and installed many times. This script could be used with the script that I wrote to display the titles of embedded videos. However, I have found that this script does not always add the titles to the links that my script adds. Also, I would prefer to have the functionality for adding these titles in my script in order to save users the trouble of having to look for another script.

A drawback of adding this functionality to the script is that it is addition of a feature that some might not want. Some may not want the overhead of having these HTTP requests done to retrieve video titles, and some may simply find this feature unnecessary. And many may already have the script for adding titles of videos to these links that I previously mentioned, and so this script may sometimes add the video title a second time. For these reasons, I added a feature for toggling whether or not video titles are to be displayed. And below is a link to a screen shot that shows a web page on which the script is running, with the option to not display videos titles visible.

I wanted this updated version of the script to be made available as soon as possible. Therefore, I looked up the answers to questions I had in code that already existed. Some of the code in my script is quite obviously based on what already exists in the script for adding the titles of YouTube videos to the links to these videos. I also referred to this page on the GreaseSpot Wiki in adding the option for toggling whether or not to include video titles in these links. I often prefer to find solutions to problems on my own, although this time, trying to solve the problem without referring to code that already exists would likely be considered reinventing the wheel. However, it was also requested that I add these links to embedded videos blocked by the NoScript Firefox extension, as my script did not previously add links to videos blocked by NoScript. And I did not look up any answers in ensuring that it would add links to videos blocked by this extension.

I would like to know about any issues that this new version of the script has. It worked well in the tests that I ran with it, although the possibility that there might be instances in which it does not work properly does exist. I am also always interested in hearing suggestions on how this script can be improved. For example, the page must be refreshed for the changes to the setting for toggling whether or not to include the video title to take effect. Some might prefer that the page automatically be refreshed after this setting is changed, and some may have other suggestions for improvements to the script. It was a suggestion that led to this improvement, and so if you have any ideas on what can be done to improve on it further, I would like to know about these ideas. Scripts such as these are for users like you, and it is your suggestions that make me more likely continue improving on them.

I was going to write about Firefox extensions that could be written based on the Better Gmail extension code, and these extensions did not yet exist when I first started writing this entry. I was going to mention that the Better Gmail extension may occasionally require updates to the Greasemonkey scripts that it uses. And then this Lifehacker post came out about an upgrade made to a script that Better Gmail uses. So then I thought I should mention this upgrade here, as doing so would help illustrate a point that I was going to make. However, I was also going to write about how I was able to modify the Better Gmail extension to make it work with YouTube. Then I saw this post on Lifehacker that announced the release of a Better YouTube extension, making it unnecessary for me to speculate on when such an extension might appear, as I had originally intended. I then thought that I could at least mention why one might need to upgrade the Better Gmail extension, with the new version of Gmail rendering Better Gmail’s scripts useless. Then on Lifehacker, news was posted saying that a new extension was released, titled “Better Gmail 2″, which contained scripts that work with the new version of Gmail. And with these recent events, you may now understand why this entry is appearing a few days later than I wanted it to appear.

In this entry, I will mention how updates can be made to these extensions that improve Gmail. Occasionally, updates to scripts used by these two extensions do need to be made. And one could wait for the extensions to be updated, or one could perform the necessary updates by going through a fairly straightforward process.

Before I begin outlining this process, there are a few things that I should note. I am assuming that Windows is the operating system being used, as most of those reading this are likely using Windows. I also assume that those following the instructions have the Greasemonkey extension installed on Firefox. Firefox users that do not have it installed can either install this extension or go through a slightly different process to update the files that need to be updated. In addition, I assume that the user would be fine with installing other utilities if they are not already installed, such as the JDK. I should also note that I give upgrading of the Better Gmail extension as an example, as the only difference in upgrading Better Gmail 2 is that a directory name is slightly different. In Better Gmail 2, the directory in the extensions folder is bettergmail2@ginatrapani.org, rather than bettergmail@ginatrapani.org. Finally, I should note that the example given of upgrading Gmail Macros was rendered obsolete with the release of Better Gmail 2. I did not update this example because of a deadline I imposed upon myself in getting this blog entry published, and the reason for this deadline is one that I note at the end of this post. So for those who would like a step-by-step guide on how to perform their own upgrades of the Better Gmail extensions by adding newer versions of scripts to them, here it is.

1. Download the updated Greasemonkey script that you would like to add. You will later need to ensure that you know the name of the file that you are downloading. For example, if you are downloading the new version of Gmail Macros and replacing the old version of it, the name of the file is gmailmacrosnew.user.js.
2. Close your Mozilla Firefox web browser.
3. Go into your profile directory. Instructions on how to find your profile directory are here if you need them. Then go into the Firefox directory. Then from there, go into extensions\bettergmail@ginatrapani.org\chrome.
4. Extract the contents of the .jar file in that directory. 7-Zip is one utility that can be used to do this.
5. Go back into your profile directory, then go into the gm_scripts directory.
6. Copy the file that contains the new script to the user_scripts directory, which is within the content directory that was extracted from the .jar file. For example, to upgrade the Gmail Macros script, copy gmailmacrosnew.user.js to this directory.
7. Delete the original script file from the directory to which the new script file was copied. For example, if upgrading Gmail Macros, you would delete the file named macrosbn.js.
8. Rename the new script file that you copied to this folder to the name of the original file. For example, rename gmailmacrosnew.user.js to macrosbn.js if upgrading Gmail Macros. However, in most script upgrades, you may only need to remove “.user” from the filename.
9. Through a command prompt, go into the directory where the .jar file was first extracted in step 4. You may need to download the JDK and install it first, and the JDK can be downloaded from here. Then the command that can be run would be “jar cvf bettergmail.jar .” to create the new .jar file.
10. Start Firefox. Better Gmail should work with the new script now.

One may prefer to add more scripts to the Better Gmail extensions, instead of overwriting scripts already used by these extensions. And after working with the source code in the Better Gmail extension, I can say that adding new scripts to these extensions can be done more easily than one might think. Of course, the process of adding new scripts is more complicated than the process of updating existing ones. I could outline each step that would need to be taken in adding a script/feature to these extensions. However, I will leave that explanation out of this particular post. Whether or not one of my next posts here will be one where I give that explanation may depend on how much demand there might be for that explanation to appear here.

It might be considered more trouble than it is worth to add more scripts to these extensions, even though only a few of them can presently be used with Better Gmail 2. And one could simply look for and install scripts that work with the newer version of Gmail when they become available, and simply use them with the Greasemonkey extension. So why would one want to go through the process of adding scripts to the Better Gmail extensions? Well, once should consider the reasons these extensions exist. Having the scripts used by these extensions all grouped together with an interface that prevents enabling of conflicting scripts can be convenient, as some scripts do conflict with others. This is especially true in the case of skins. Also, when one has several Greasemonkey scripts work with all websites, the list of scripts that are available for use with a web page can be a cluttered list. Use of this extension prevents this from happening. And I must say that when I added new scripts to Better Gmail, I was more interested in seeing how adding new scripts to it could be done. Why? Because I wanted to see how I could modify the code in Better Gmail to make it work with other web pages, and with the scripts that work with these other pages. This was supposed to lead into me commenting on the possibility of a Better YouTube extension, however I can at least say I have verified that these extensions that make websites “better” can be easily developed.

There might be some who would want to go through the process of updating and adding scripts used by the extensions that I mentioned here. I am not sure how many people would actually go ahead with this, but the instructions I have listed here can be referred to by those who may want to update these extensions. And with the new version of Gmail coming out, we have recently seen that scripts in the Better Gmail extensions occasionally need to be updated. And with the Better Gmail 2 extension currently lacking features/scripts, perhaps it would have been a good idea for me to include instructions on how to add new scripts to Better Gmail 2. However, I must admit that a reason I decided to leave out those instructions for now is that I wanted to get this entry published as soon as possible. And that is because I wanted to make sure that I got this post published before a fourth event could occur that would make me need to rewrite what I wrote, and thus cause the publishing of this post to be delayed yet again.

I would first like to say that I was flattered that something that I wrote was featured among the interesting material on Lifehacker. However, I would have preferred that they got my name right when mentioning who wrote the featured blog post. And it was my first name, not my often-misspelled surname that was not entered correctly there. And to those interested in how I reacted to seeing that I was twice referred to as “Jane Kasprzak” in that post, I would like to say that I laughed out loud. However, my name being entered incorrectly there was not something that mattered to me very much. The interesting discussions that resulted from what I wrote is a reason my name being entered incorrectly is not something I will focus on here.

Some interesting points were made by Adam Pash, and by those who have contributed comments in response to what I wrote. It was after Mr. Pash asked for comments on Greasemonkey scripts for YouTube (and other related YouTube tweaks) that some interesting comments were made. A few other interesting Greasemonkey scripts were mentioned both here and in the comments section of the Lifehacker post. In fact, when writing last week’s blog post, I considered mentioning that some may prefer the script for removing comments, rather than the one for moving comments to a different location. This is one example of two scripts for YouTube that users may want to have, but conflict with each other. And there are many other scripts that perform many other tasks that may conflict with each other, but are ones that users may still want enabled at certain times. For this reason, it would be good to have a Firefox extension that contains all of these scripts and only allows scripts that do not conflict with each other to be simultaneously enabled. And it is this kind of extension that Adam Pash less-than-subtly suggested be written, and this suggestion led to another discussion that I would like to join.

Mr. Pash alluded to the extension titled “Better Gmail” that contains over twenty-five (25) Greasemonkey scripts that a user can have enabled. Many of these scripts are considered features that can be added to Gmail, and others are considered skins to customize the appearance of Gmail. It is convenient to have an extension such as this, as it saves the user the time that would be spent looking for and downloading each individual script. In addition, with this extension, scripts that conflict with each other cannot be simultaneously enabled through the interface that it has. And so with the many scripts available for enhancing YouTube, would it not make sense for a similar extension titled “Better YouTube” to be made available? Well, such an extension may be on its way soon.

There certainly would be interest in this kind of extension, and it may be available sooner than one might think, because it may be fairly easy to develop. This extension could simply be based on the Better Gmail extension, which in turn seems to be based on the Better GCal extension. After looking through the source code for both of these extensions, it appears that few modifications of the Better Gmail extension need to be made for it to work with YouTube. It may need to be based on the Better Gmail code, as the code for the Better GCal extension does not appear to work with conflicting scripts. It might take some time to determine which scripts should be included in this extension, and to determine which ones might conflict with each other. However, Gina Trapani, who wrote these two extensions, has emphasized in her book that where there’s a will there’s a way. And it is not my intention to pressure Ms. Trapani or anyone else who might write this extension into getting it done quickly. I am only saying it can be done, and that it may be done soon.

When I wrote last week’s blog post, I never did expect it to lead to the kind of discussion that took place here, let alone on Lifehacker. I never did think that this post would lead to anything that might possibly be considered a catalyst for the development of a Firefox extension that many would consider useful. However, I am quite pleased to see this, as this extension that I am indirectly and accidentally responsible for creating interest in is one that I too would like to see.

Before I do begin discussion of these scripts, I should note that a discussion of Greasemonkey scripts for YouTube is already available elsewhere. It is on that social networking news blog named Mashable where there is a blog post titled “12 Essential Greasemonkey Hacks for YouTube.” I should mention that before finding out about this post, I did consider writing a blog entry in which I discuss useful Greasemonkey scripts for YouTube. And so it is quite fortunate that I found out about this post before publishing this entry, as I certainly would prefer that this post not be considered redundant by the many people who have already read that post on Mashable. I am writing this entry to complement that post that I mention, as listing twelve of these scripts is, in my opinion, not quite enough. There are other scripts like these that deserve to be mentioned, and so it is here that I mention another five of these scripts that YouTube users may be interested in using. And so without any further ado, here are another five Greasemonkey scripts for YouTube that are worth a look.

1. YouTube Resizer. It was shortly after reading this blog post on Lifehacker about stretching YouTube videos to fit the width of the browser that I found out about this script. Adam Pash wrote about wanting to make YouTube videos larger, without having to having to use the “hugely pixelated fullscreen interface.” He mentioned that a bookmarklet or Greasemonkey script that redirects the user to a page in which the video display is larger would be good to have. Then I checked to see if a Greasemonkey script for doing this already exists, and I found this one, which is similar to what is described in that post, except that this one is better. It makes the area for displaying the video larger, without redirecting the user to another page.
2. YouTube Prevent Autoplay. Have you ever wanted go to the page for a YouTube video without having the video immediately play? Perhaps you simply would like to read through comments on these videos, even if it sometimes seems that the majority of these comments are spam. Or you may only want to look for videos that are considered similar to the one you are bringing up. And this script is also one that is quite useful when testing out Greasemonkey scripts that work with YouTube pages, as I have found out. There may be a number of reasons for wanting the video on the page to be played only when you tell it to do so, and I personally have kept this script enabled at all times.
3. YouTube BetterTitles. The individual who wrote this script puts it best by describing it as follows: “Many pages on YouTube have the same title: ‘YouTube – Broadcast Yourself.’ If you have several tabs open, things get confusing. This simple script changes the title on some often-used YouTube pages. Examples for improved titles include ‘Manage contacts’ or ‘Most Recent (page 3).’” So if you find that you would like to have several videos open in separate tabs, as I sometimes do, then this script is essential.
4. YouTube Better Embed. I have mentioned in a previous blog post that the code for embedding videos that is included on the YouTube pages on which YouTube videos can be viewed is not compliant with XHTML 1.0. And so if you would like to copy and paste the code for embedding a YouTube video into the code for a web page, and would like to do so without using any tags that are considered deprecated, then you’ll find this script useful.
5. YouTube Comments Next to Videos. There may be times that you would like to peruse comments comments on a YouTube video while watching the video. And this script, which was inspired by the design of Google Video pages, enables you to do so by putting these comments next to the video. There is the script named “YouTube Googler” that makes the design of YouTube video pages similar to the design of pages on Google Video. However, if it is only this one feature that you would like to borrow from Google Video, then this is the script that you would want.

In this post, I have mentioned scripts such as these as reasons to want to visit the YouTube page on which a YouTube video is located, after finding a YouTube video embedded in a web page. Some have already found these scripts that I mention useful, judging by the number of times they have been downloaded. And for this reason, perhaps a few more people will consider the script that I wrote for embedded YouTube videos useful. I may have more to learn about marketing of the software that I write, and informing people of what I write and why it can be useful is something that I would like to do well. And marketing of what I write is something I have considered writing an entire blog post about, and that may be a post that will appear a few blog posts from now. And hopefully “a few blog posts from now” will not be considered a very long time when measured in days or weeks.

Prior to writing this script, I searched for scripts on Userscripts.org that already performed this task of adding this link below embedded videos. And so I suppose I did not look carefully enough through the many scripts that were already there. Had I looked more carefully, I would have seen this script among the many scripts that could be found when searching for YouTube-related Greasemonkey scripts. In addition, I would have noticed that there was another script, based on the previous one, that had the additional feature of including the title of the embedded video in the link. Coincidentally, inclusion of the name of the video in the link was a feature that I considered adding to the script that I wrote. And after seeing these scripts there, I wondered why I did not look more carefully for similar scripts, and why I did not try harder to avoid writing something that was already written. I did previously mention that taking on the challenge of writing this script was one of the reasons I chose to write it. It might have taken less effort for me to look more thoroughly and carefully through scripts for YouTube that work with embedded videos, but I wanted to be able to say I could write this myself. However, is my script then redundant, and thus, not one that others would want to use? Not necessarily.

When I was writing this script, I was interested in seeing how the code that I wrote would compare with the code for a similar script that already existed. And after seeing this other script that performed the same task as mine, it was once again interesting to see the same problem solved with a different approach. In this other script, links would be added to videos that were embedded using the <object> tag. However, I ensured that the script that I wrote also added links below embedded videos that are embedded using only the <embed> tag. I wanted to ensure that this script would work with as many embedded videos as possible, and so I ensured that it would work with embedded videos that were embedded much differently from how it is suggested on YouTube. In fact, I was testing it out on this page that had the video embedded without the use of the <object> tag. I ensured that it worked there, as there may be other pages that embed videos this way. I’m not sure how often that page on which I tested the script gets visited, but I thought it might be visited at least often enough for me to try to make it work with that page. That SmartMirror, designed by students at the University of Waterloo, does look like an interesting idea, and thus, one that I think would lead to that page getting many hits. But being a UW graduate myself, I may be biased, and I digress.

When I first starting writing this script, I thought of simply getting it to work with videos when they are embedded the way it is suggested on YouTube, just so it would work with most embedded YouTube videos. However, it appears that my idea of making it work with as many embedded YouTube videos as possible turned out being a good one. Still, I may look to add more to this script to set it apart from scripts similar to it that already exist. But there are other scripts that I am working on (as I previously mentioned) and those ones are more likely to be what will be released next from me.

I recently came up with the idea of inserting links below embedded YouTube videos that would take the user to the YouTube page for the embedded video. When viewing a web page that has a video hosted on YouTube on it, the place where the video would be displayed can be clicked, and the video would be displayed there. And after viewing this video, one might want to view the page on YouTube for the video. One might want to get the information about how to embed the video in a web page. One might also want to check statistics on how many times it has been viewed. Perhaps one may want to read or post comments about the video on the page on which the video is hosted. And of course, there are those who may want to do what can only be done with the video by using Greasemonkey scripts that only work with the video when it is viewed on its YouTube page. For these reasons, it made sense for this kind of script to be made available.

I checked to see if any similar Greasemonkey scripts were already publicly available through Userscripts.org after I got this idea. And I saw one hosted on that site that I had not yet noticed before. There was this script there that was very similar to what I had in mind, in that it replaced the place in which the video would be viewed with a still image of the video. And when clicking on this still image, one would be taken to the YouTube page on which this video was hosted. I have periodically looked for scripts on Userscripts.org that were for YouTube and I had not noticed this one. Was it a coincidence that this script was recently added to the list of scripts with the “youtube” tag, or did I somehow subconsciously decide to “borrow” an idea from another script? In any case, I preferred having a choice between viewing the video where it was and going to the YouTube page for the video. And the script that I would write would give the user this choice.

So I decided to go about writing the script, knowing that if I had some difficulty with it, I could refer to the source code of scripts that did similar things. But I chose to avoid referring to the source code of these scripts. I could have looked up the answers to questions I had about writing this script, but I decided to put off looking up these answers until I finished working on this on my own. If I referred to the source code for these scripts, I could have released this script sooner. However, given the choice between getting this done quickly and taking on the challenge of finding out on my own how this could be done, I had to choose the latter option. The challenge of writing the script was one that I wanted to take on. It was not only the finished product that I was interested in.

After writing this script, I did refer to the source code of other scripts that work with embedded YouTube videos. I compared the way in which they were written to the way that I wrote mine. And although I did get some ideas on how they could be improved, I did not get all the answers that I wanted to find. I have found that YouTube videos do not always get embedded in web pages the way it is suggested on the pages for YouTube videos. In fact, if you click here or here you’ll see that the use of the <embed> tag may not always be used in embedding these videos. Some might copy and paste the code for embedding the video from the YouTube page for the video, but there are those who do not want to use a tag that has been deprecated in XHTML 1.0. In addition, an <embed> tag (that is not within an <object> tag) could also be used to embed videos. I have found that some Greasemonkey scripts that work with embedded videos do not handle the different ways in which videos are embedded. And I wanted to ensure that this script would be able to handle the different ways in which these videos can be embedded.

The script can be downloaded if you click here. And after downloading and installing it, you may want to try it out by visiting a page such as this one. If there are any pages with embedded videos that it does not work with, I would like to know about them. Any feedback on this script would be appreciated. And I am sure at least a few people will find this script useful, as the scripts that may or may not have led to me working on it are apparently being used by at least a few other people. It is however, interesting to note that this script that mine might be based on, was in turn based on this script.

One of the advanced features of Google that I use most often is the one for searching within specific domains or websites, as Google can be better for searching through sites than the search features included in some sites. I have often found that I like to search for YouTube videos once I get Firefox started up, and YouTube-specific searches are not going to be included on Google’s main page despite Google owning YouTube. And I did not want to use the search plugin for YouTube, which you can find and download if you click here, as I preferred to simply work with what was on the web page. So I wanted to add some functionality to the Google’s main page that would allow YouTube-specific searches, as I was getting tired of having to type in “site:www.youtube.com” after entering search terms. And I still wanted to be able to do these searches from the main Google page, rather than set my browser’s home page to the advanced search page. (And even if I did have it set to this advanced search page, I would still need to type in the domain name in the place where it needed to be entered, which I wanted to avoid.)

I am fairly new to using Greasemonkey, as it has been somewhat recently that I have found out how useful it can be. What I have liked the most about it is its ability to add the kind of functionality to web pages that I, but not necessarily others, would like to see on them. And so I decided to use Greasemonkey to make it so that I could use some of Google’s advanced search capabilities on the simple and uncluttered main Google page. I quickly wrote a Greasemonkey script that adds a button for YouTube-specific searches to Google’s main page, and to Google’s pages that display search results. After entering the search string and clicking this button, it displays search results from within youtube.com. I have found this script useful so far, as it has saved me keystrokes, mouse clicks, and time it takes to load pages. In fact, I found it very useful after I time I walked by the intersection of Yonge and Dundas Streets in Toronto, where I saw a sidewalk chalk artist suggest doing a search on YouTube for “chalk this way.” With this script, the result that he would want me to see was the first in the list of the results, and I was able to get there without having to go through YouTube.

You can click here to download this Greasemonkey script. I don’t expect many others to be very interested in using the script at this time, but I’m making it available for those who might want to use it. I should also note that this script may be something I’ll continue to work on. And as is the case with anything else I write, any feedback would be appreciated. Also worth mentioning is that this script only requires a few slight modifications for making it so it can search other sites. I’m not sure how many members of Greasemonkey’s userbase might be willing to make these slight modifications to the source code, even though in the source, it is documented where changes need to be made to make it search different sites. It is quite possible that those who use Greasemonkey can often be expected to make those kinds of changes, as Greasemonkey users may tend to be advanced Firefox users. However, I am not quite sure of this, but the topic of the level of knowledge of Greasemonkey users can be a topic for another blog entry.