New noscript interface

Post a reply

Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: New noscript interface

Re: New noscript interface

by other Max » Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:09 pm

Hello, found an answer to my own question: "the red background behind a checkbox means NoScript blocked a request for that kind of content, so you can see what's being blocked for each domain"

Re: New noscript interface

by other Max » Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:00 pm

Hello, under the custom tab there's sometimes a red box underneath ex. script, why is that? I've spent the past hour searching for an answer to no avail, perhaps i'm blind. :roll: thanks in advance.

Re: New noscript interface

by fenix » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:55 pm

Hello.

I would like to answer to short barbaz phrase. I mean: "If you would like to request change in the UI...". That's true and You could start a new thread and write about your ideas etc. It's really amazing and simple. Here is a list of four threads about NoScript v10 User Interface, some technical changes, that I created:

https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =7&t=25149
https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =7&t=24434
https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =7&t=24668
https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =7&t=25108

Unfortunately, I don't have a direct links to another threads. However, they still should be available somewhere on informaction forum. Anyway, I have some more ideas for both aspects: UI and technical/core functionality etc.

Good luck, No enjoying it!

Best regards.

Re: New noscript interface

by musonius » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:25 pm

To me it is incomprehensible how the new GUI can be incomprehensible. I can understand that one may have to get used to such a big change and that one may be disappointed about the loss of quite a lot of functionality, but I don't understand the outrageous exaggerations about usability.

That doesn't mean that the new GUI couldn't be improved, because everything can be improved. For example, NoScript can be difficult to use sometimes, because there is no information about what is being blocked for the listed sites.

Re: New noscript interface

by barbaz » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:50 am

No enjoying it wrote:After holding off updating firefox from v49 then updating FF to v62.03 and having to add back NS, all i can say is learning curve is horrible to deal with.
It looks simpler, but definitely is not.
I was use to how it worked where stuff was....
I feel like I'm being punished when trying to use NS atm.

I do understand it's meant to be more configurable in a simple manner, but it misses the mark by a long shot compared to old versions, for me anyway.
Thanks for the feedback, but it's too vague to be actionable. If you would like to request change in the UI, please provide specifics and details of what exactly you find "horrible" and what you feel needs simplification.

Re: New noscript interface

by No enjoying it » Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:29 am

After holding off updating firefox from v49 then updating FF to v62.03 and having to add back NS, all i can say is learning curve is horrible to deal with.
It looks simpler, but definitely is not.
I was use to how it worked where stuff was....
I feel like I'm being punished when trying to use NS atm.

I do understand it's meant to be more configurable in a simple manner, but it misses the mark by a long shot compared to old versions, for me anyway.

Yours not so sincerely...
Ashley Christiansen

Re: New noscript interface

by vr8ce » Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:41 pm

Pansa wrote:And all this "ns5 was so intuitive" talk is just factually not true.
Really? Let's see your facts.

Here's a fact — I never visited this forum, saw a manual, did anything with NoScript prior to 10.x but use it. I'm betting I was the rule, not the exception. I think the level of traffic here since 10.x would substantiate that as well. The choices were obvious because they were words, and they were mutually exclusive — temporarily allow this, permanently allow that, permanently allow everything on this page. We didn't have to guess at icons, we didn't have to click five things to make a single thing happen. You can call that intuitive, or clear, or whatever you want, but the fact is that it was both of those, because there was no ambiguity or confusion to the choices. There is all of the above with the current UI.

"The UI has to change because of WebExtension." Great, no problem. But just because it has to change doesn't mean it has to be incomprehensible. And it is, in general, incomprehensible. That is an opinion, but it is an educated one, and it is one held by a large number of people, people who successfully used the old UI for a long time. The 10.x traffic here isn't predominantly "Put the old UI back", it's "The new UI is incomprehensible!". Sometimes it's both, but the instances of the former are caused by the latter. If the new UI was clear and comprehensible, very few would care that the UI had changed.

Now, NoScript is free software, which means Giorgio is free to do whatever he wants, including making his UI incomprehensible, and leaving it that way. I don't think that's his goal, however. But it is the current result. IMO he ought to throw the UI out and start over. There is no reason a WebExtension UI can't be clear and comprehensible, and plenty of examples that prove one can. NoScript isn't one of them.

Re: New noscript interface

by OLD-INTERFACE » Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:39 pm

Don't get me wrong, I really love the functionality and I also paid for noscript.

BUT: PLEASE!! Could you PLEASE bring back the old interface? The new one is confusing, too big in size and not usable. I'm seriously thinking about deinstalling noscript because of the bad usability.

THANKS!

Re: New noscript interface

by SeppMaier » Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:51 am

Teao wrote:
Pansa wrote:
Teao wrote: Also on my second monitor the menu just is unreadable. It only works right on my main monitor.
This is what it looks like on my second monitor:
https://i.imgur.com/KLX6yUV.png
I can't help with the size problem. It looks fine on my second screen despite running a lower resolution.
I suspect the issue is my main screen is high resolution but I also have windows scaling set to 200%
https://i.imgur.com/TjaLUTR.png
My second monitor is a lower resolution but the scale is set to 100%
https://i.imgur.com/u3fnvhS.png

It seems like no script is using the 200% scaling setting from the main monitor for the second monitor too.

Same here. Primary monitor scaled 125% and secondary screen scaled to 100%.
On Primary Screen all os fine, on 2nd screen the Window is scaled bad. with V10.1.5.5

Image

When I right-click into the window - (somewhere) It rescales correctly !

Re: New noscript interface

by zetaS » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:26 am

Please if it is possible to make a video tutorial of the new version. Thanks to everyone for the hard work.

Re: New noscript interface

by Headache » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:56 pm

nonscribe wrote:So the virtually impenetrable and truncated lack of detail in the new version is Mozilla pushing discoverability and sleek icons over text and menus and intelligibility?

Can't figure out a thing with this new version, have no idea what I've allowed or not, used NoScript 99% for temporary permissions to do what I needed to and then revoking them; have lost that reassuring 'revoke all temporary permissions' in the new interface. Glad to have it so I can be on zippy FF, but feel like I'm completely at sea now.
All of this. 57 is fairly quick but all of the broken addons are a nightmare and NoScript completely changing has been a big ballache.

Speaking generally about software, I hate everything progressively turning to icons to cater to mobile devices. Give me some alt-text at least ffs.

Re: New noscript interface

by Peter 123 » Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:42 pm

By the way:

Above I wrote:
Peter 123 wrote:No one would expect that checking/unchecking a box (in this list) for a certain domain has an effect to all domains! (With exception of course the checkmark list for the Custom scope.)
Why is such a list in every line (= for every domain/subdomain)? When I check or uncheck something for a domain XYZ I expect that it applies only to this domain XYZ and not to all domains.

To my mind the logical structure should be something like this:
- There should be a single, general checkmark list (e.g. somewhere in the options) which determines the rules (concerning the permission of object, media, frame etc.) for all domains.
- Apart from this there would exist only one additional checkmark list for every domain/subdomain/line where I can determine specific rules especially for this domain/subdomain.
I have the impression that the following statement by Giorgio in anther thread supports my point of view:
Giorgio Maone wrote:
FrustratedNS wrote: I do think it would be more intuitive to set the defaults on a separate menu (go to the NoScript Options page). Also, changing the default can be almost as bad as "allow scripts globally", so maybe a warning message???
That's a really good idea, and also probably moving the presets customizability (except from CUSTOM, maybe) away from the popup interface, keeping it only in the options. Maybe.
(see https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... 012#p93412)

Re: New noscript interface

by Guest » Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:16 am

Pansa wrote:
Crapalapadingdong wrote:Is there no longer a way to temporarily allow single sites to execute js? It seems I can allow *all* but not just one or two like I used tobe able to. I will note though: I really don't get this interface so it may be way over my head on how to do this. I just want to click something like Temporarily Allow SiteX and not open submenus and fiddle with checkboxes, and not even be able to see the whole URL, and click on allowing https or use normal protocol,etc.

Can I temporarily allow sites individually? (highlight two keywords)
If you have 10.1.3
you click on the "trusted" button in front of the rule that says "http(s)://this.individual.page" .
-> success!
Where is that?? I have 10.1.5.3, which is driving me crazy for other reasons, but I see nothing resembling that rule.

Re: New noscript interface

by Pansa » Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:45 pm

Peter 123 wrote:
Pansa wrote: It makes no sense other than default, untrusted and untrusted to be scopes, and custom to be not.
But "Custom" is a scope too. See e.g. the following sentences in blunelvita's guide:
blublevita wrote: There are four scopes: Default, Trusted, Untrusted and Custom.
[...]
Only the Custom scope allows [...]
Sigh.
THen drop the effing word "scope", it's not in the interface to begin with.

default, trusted and untrusted are "groups" with members, and the rules apply to all members.
Custom is a setting that applies individually.

The first thing as you read the buttons should be to realise that there is a binary distinction. "custom" and "not custom". Because the word custom has MEANING.
Since you can customize the checkmarks in all 4, obviously that can't be what is custom about custom.
At which point you should already grasp that "default" makes no sense, if all things that are default (which means "not yet chosen to be something else") are different.
So if default makes no sense unless it applies to everything in it, and custom can't apply to the settings.....

The only logical conclusion is that changing the checkmarks on one line you set to custom should not apply to all the other customs (the lines being what makes it custom), and the default should apply to all of them. Because that is what default means if you obviously are allowed to change the checkmarks in it.

Which was awesome in 10.1.1, because right out of the gate clicking on a checkmark in custom switched that checkmark on in default.
Which was OBVIOUSLY a bug, because it made no sense in that system. Which you can only conclude because the system made sense to begin in the other aspects.

THe thing is when you just look at the information given, and take the words it gives you, there is really only one interpretation that works...
And what you propose is that instead of you looking at that, it should be the way you expect it without doing that.

>And if you read the comments here in this forum (or also outside from it) you will see that I am by far not the the only one who is confused by the new version. You should also think about why this happens.

Which is except for the people trying to help and trying to report bugs compromised of people having a problem. Which btw coincides with people who also frequently don't check whether a topic is already discussed 3 times on the first page..
And I don't know if you have, but I have read every single post made here since the release of 10.1.1 , and every change that was made to the behaviour off the addon between the version because "loads of people complained" spawned the direct opposite wave of people complaining about the inverse. Lots of people don't actually pay attention or don't look at things before they complain. That is what it is.

There just is a fundamental difference between something not being consistent in itself, and not what people are used to.
And things that are "not as they used to" will always spawn a lot of complaints, regardless whether they are actually internally consistent and concise in naming things.

Re: New noscript interface

by Peter 123 » Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:20 pm

Pansa wrote: It makes no sense other than default, untrusted and untrusted to be scopes, and custom to be not.
But "Custom" is a scope too. See e.g. the following sentences in blunelvita's guide:
blublevita wrote: There are four scopes: Default, Trusted, Untrusted and Custom.
[...]
Only the Custom scope allows [...]
Pansa wrote: The rest of the post is again the difference between actual intuition, and trying to enforce a former system.
You want your preconceptions from a different interface to be conformed to, and even in a way that deprives other people from as quick an access to what they want over what you want. Because what you want is obviously more "right".
I would like to ask you to restrict your commitment to NoScript 10 to objective arguments which refer to the technical and functional aspects of this software. Please avoid to start judgments about what you regard my personal and psychological intentions to be satisfied or unsatisfied with certain features or characteristics of NoScript 10.

And if you read the comments here in this forum (or also outside from it) you will see that I am by far not the the only one who is confused by the new version. You should also think about why this happens.

Top