Testers Wanted: NoScript UX Overhaul by Simply Secure

Bug reports and enhancement requests
Post Reply
User avatar
Giorgio Maone
Site Admin
Posts: 8701
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm
Location: Palermo - Italy
Contact:

Testers Wanted: NoScript UX Overhaul by Simply Secure

Post by Giorgio Maone » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:03 pm

Hi NoScripters.
SimplySecure is trying to enhance NoScript's user experience (including a UI overhaul and better documentation), and is looking for volunteers to test their prototypes live.
If you're interested, send me a PM and I'll be glad to provide more details.
Thank you all!
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0

User avatar
therube
Ambassador
Posts: 7426
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: Testers Wanted: NoScript UX Overhaul by Simply Secure

Post by therube » Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:58 pm

Anything come of this?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball NoScript FlashGot AdblockPlus
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.49.5

User avatar
Giorgio Maone
Site Admin
Posts: 8701
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm
Location: Palermo - Italy
Contact:

Re: Testers Wanted: NoScript UX Overhaul by Simply Secure

Post by Giorgio Maone » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:37 am

We're almost done: Simply Secure is about to publish an extensive report on their work (including screenshots of their interation prototypes), and I'm prototyping the first functional alpha based on their input, hoping to have something to play with by London's MozFest in late October.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:70.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/70.0

User avatar
Giorgio Maone
Site Admin
Posts: 8701
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm
Location: Palermo - Italy
Contact:

Re: Testers Wanted: NoScript UX Overhaul by Simply Secure

Post by Giorgio Maone » Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:02 pm

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:70.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/70.0

User avatar
therube
Ambassador
Posts: 7426
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: Testers Wanted: NoScript UX Overhaul by Simply Secure

Post by therube » Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:48 pm

Oh wow, my head is spinning.
I literally couldn't finish reading through the examples.

red & green & black & blue & gray
checkmarks & underlines & dots
tabs & all & site
dropdowns
hieroglyphics

The "main" icon, & "good luck", seem amateurish & silly, not that that really matters.


Would something like that work, would it be "better"?
Oh, that's a very tough one to comment on without actually having it to bang on it.


As I see it (in 10)...

Wording, terminology, has never worked for me - counter intuitive
Icon status, likewise, has always twisted my brain
And the lack of a simply way (shortcut, Ctrl+Shift+\) to (Temporarily) Allow the "primary" domain


(And then, there is the total hampering of, well, everything, that Quantum & webextensions impose.
A click-click here, a click-click there, here a click, there a click, everywhere a click-click.
Clickity-click was a click, e-i-e-i-o.)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball NoScript FlashGot AdblockPlus
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.49.5

barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9180
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Testers Wanted: NoScript UX Overhaul by Simply Secure

Post by barbaz » Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:06 am

I don't feel that I can reasonably make many comments without having the new UI in front of me in a functional NoScript. But a couple things really jumped out at me:


1) Even as an experienced NoScript user, I have NO idea what "Allow affiliated scripts" means. Intuitively, and ignoring a lot of context, the wording suggests something like "allow all domains that 'belong' to this site, e.g. a site and its CDN, e.g. soundcloud.com + sndcdn.com". But that cannot be what was meant here, because it's not technically possible to automatically determine that type of affiliation.

So what is an "affiliated script"? Some user-defined relationship?

As this is intended to be a "'quick and dirty' option", it needs to be self-explanatory, easy to figure out and understand. Unless there is going to be an "Affiliated Scripts" section in the new NoScript Options where the user gets to decide what it means (by manually specifying like "site2.com and site3.com are affiliated with site1.com"), it would seem this wording has really missed the mark.
(A user-defined affiliation system would be pretty useful, and IIRC it has been requested by me and others before. So I hope that is what it'll mean.)


2) Is it intentional that in the proposed new NoScript logo, the snake looks disappointed, instead of continuing the "cartoonish fierce" look of the current logo? I didn't see any comment on this.

EDIT To be clear, I don't have a preference on the icon atm. I'm just wondering if this specific point was a deliberate design choice, and if so the thinking behind it?
Last edited by barbaz on Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

musonius
Senior Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: Testers Wanted: NoScript UX Overhaul by Simply Secure

Post by musonius » Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:46 am

That's basically a different extension again...

I fully agree with barbaz on both points.

1) My best guess about that "Allow affiliated scripts" thing is, that it may be what the current "Set all on this page to Temporarily TRUSTED" is.

If my guess is correct, then the new wording won't be an improvement, because it suggests something different than what it actually does.

On the other hand, a new feature to allow affiliated scripts automatically would be fine. For example, vimeocdn.com is affiliated to vimeo.com. Automatically allowing such affiliated scripts may be a lot of work to be implemented. I guess, this cannot be done fully automated, but has to be defined by someone.

2) I prefer the old icon as well.

3) The new UI looks good in terms of modern UI design and may therefore feel more familiar to many new users. By and large, it may be easier for many.

As a user of Vim, I have never cared that NoScript looks like it was last updated a decade ago though.

4) I am wondering, if it's a good idea to have so much empty space. This certainly works with a handful of domains, but how does it work when there are some dozens of domains?

The option screen will work well on broad screens, but does the new UI work on tablets or small screens as well?

5) Obviously, I have not worked with the new UI yet and therefore it is hard to say, how good it works in use. I think, that there are a lot of open details which are to be solved and I am looking forward to see the first prototype mentioned above.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:69.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/69.0

barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9180
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Testers Wanted: NoScript UX Overhaul by Simply Secure

Post by barbaz » Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:44 pm

musonius wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:46 am
I fully agree with barbaz on both points.

[...]

2) I prefer the old icon as well.
Apparently I didn't make myself clear about the icon.

I wasn't expressing a preference about the icon. I'm not sure if I have a preference at this stage. I was just wondering if the specific change I pointed out was a design choice, and if so the thinking behind it?
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

Post Reply