(1)
Your rating: Now say why...
Klik is a tool for capturing full-length webpage snapshots. Lets you easily make snapshots of any webpages, tall and wide, which you never see as a whole even in a full-screen browser.
What's New
Version 1.1.2:
- Minor bug fix release
Requirements
Intel, Mac OS X 10.5 or later.
Intel, Mac OS X 10.5 or later.
Klik User Discussion (Write a Review)
Overall:
(1)
(1)
| Downloads:1,275 |
| Version Downloads:817 |
| Type:Internet : Internet Utilities |
| License:Commercial |
| Date:04 Oct 2010 |
| Platform:Intel |
| Price: Notice: A non well formed numeric value encountered in /www/macupdate.com/actions/app.php on line 1140 $19.00 |
Overall (Version 1.x):  |
| Features: |
| Ease of Use: |
| Value: |
| Stability: |
-
-
-
Klik is a tool for capturing full-length webpage snapshots. Lets you easily make snapshots of any webpages, tall and wide, which you never see as a whole even in a full-screen browser.
Copyright © 2012 MacUpdate LLC
- -
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1146/
Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cpngackimfmofbokmjmljamhdncknpmg?hl=en
However, as of now, these extensions miss a few demanded functions:
- you can't adjust size of the resulting image other than by adjusting browser window size, which might be quite frustrating
- both lack automation features
- neither of these can decorate the resulting images and customize them, which might be pretty useful when preparing a portfolio or some webapp screenshots.
If you're looking for a free alternative to Klik, we recommend you to check “Paparazzi!”, which, of course, has its own limitations.
-2
+43
Magosilvan reviewed on 12 Sep 2010
What exactly is behind the “graphical quality is poor”? Do you mean the quality of the resulting images?
And what do you mean by saying that it “lacks all the links”?
-1
+43
Exactly.
"And what do you mean by saying that it “lacks all the links”? "
I mean that, trying it, what I got after saving was an image without the original links.
I prefer to print the page as pdf: it's longer I know, but preserves the links ... and the quality is better!
+3
And what is about the image quality - it is lossless if you're selecting PNG or TIFF formats for output, and it is exactly of the selected quality for JPEGs. The only issue I can see here is that in trial version, a resulting image is watermarked, which may look “bad” if you are checking image briefly or extremely zoomed out.
+2
+226