New noscript interface

Ask for help about NoScript, no registration needed to post
Peter 123
Junior Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:27 am

Re: New noscript interface

Post by Peter 123 »

William Ockham wrote: The earlier NoScript featured a simple, usable, one-column, one-click interface. The system was efficient and effective. [...]
By contrast, the new NoScript presents a complex interface with multiple columns, multiple icons and drop-down menus. Some of the elements appear to overlap. From a design standpoint, the new system is a mess.
I have exactly the opposite opinion. :P

That's the way the interface (german language) looked like in the old version:

Image

To my mind multiple columns and icons are by far better because I see at first sight which setting is chosen and which (other) options I have. And this is clearly structured line by line for every page / source.

When using the old interface I was often a little bit unsure what the status - shown by only one picture plus comment - means: Is it the current setting or do I have to click on it to make it my current setting?? And though I had already used NoScript quite a long time I never became really familiar with this minimalistic system. (Even now looking at the picture above, I am not sure: For which page script was allowed and for which page not?)

The new solution is (at least for my needs) not only much better but it is excellent! I hope it will be kept. ;)

Only small details perhaps could be improved / clarified indeed, e.g.:
- an additional, own symbol for "temporarily allowed" (perhaps a "S" with a small clock like the one already used now)
- two different symbols (instead of the same) for "Default" and "Untrusted" (as these two options allow/forbid different things ["Untrusted" is more restrictive]).

But such relatively small modifications would (and should) not affect the general concept of the new interface.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
Crapalapadingdong

Re: New noscript interface

Post by Crapalapadingdong »

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!
Can't check currently but thanks. Whenever I click the NS icon it just minimizes my browser.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
KieranWalker

Re: New noscript interface

Post by KieranWalker »

All right, now with the update to 10.1.4, Dropbox won't work even when set to Trusted and Allow All This Page isn't doing anything. The site itself loads, but nothing actually functions (file list doesn't populate and none of the buttons appear). Dropbox seems to be the only site doing this (at the moment). All Allow options checked under Trusted, doesn't matter what the HTTPS switch is set to. I've closed all tabs, restarted Firefox, and uninstalled & reinstalled NoScript; no change. Still running a normal Firefox window in Windows 7.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
Denis

Re: New noscript interface

Post by Denis »

I also don't think, that new Noscript UI is better then old one.
I wish to see old UI at least as option, but better as default.
These icons are totally mess especially custom ones.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
KieranWalker

Re: New noscript interface

Post by KieranWalker »

KieranWalker wrote:All right, now with the update to 10.1.4, Dropbox won't work even when set to Trusted and Allow All This Page isn't doing anything. The site itself loads, but nothing actually functions (file list doesn't populate and none of the buttons appear). Dropbox seems to be the only site doing this (at the moment). All Allow options checked under Trusted, doesn't matter what the HTTPS switch is set to. I've closed all tabs, restarted Firefox, and uninstalled & reinstalled NoScript; no change. Still running a normal Firefox window in Windows 7.
Looks like this is being caused by the 10.1.4 "not all scripts are reported and are being blocked automatically" bug Giorgio is currently working on squashing. Reverting back to 10.1.3 for now.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
Teao

Re: New noscript interface

Post by Teao »

Pansa wrote: I honestly think it isn't a matter of intuition. It is a matter of clicking on things and reading the mouse-over text.
In most software I go around clicking things to see what they do.
In software meant to help me keep things secure I do not.
The mouse over-text shows the same whether something is on or off. There is no *status* that says that it is currently temporarily allowed vs permanently allowed other than the color of a secondary icon.
I don't think that "click on trusted and then whether temp or not" is so much more unintuitive than demanding a "where is the temp allow button, clicking on allow first is unintuitive".
When I want to "temporarily allow", in my head it means I do NOT trust it. If I trusted it, I would permanently allow it. That's the thing that is not intuitive. I don't trust something but I want it to run just this once, that's what I'm doing.


The other things that's missing is where is the "recently blocked" list? Often I'd go to a page and it's not working and then I allow the script for that site to run and just that site. Often the other scripts are not even listed yet because they get added dynamically when the main script runs. So once it is allowed it runs, attempts to load more scripts, realizes I've blocked those other scripts and immediately sends me to a static "you've blocked stuff" error page. This page has no scripts and I have no options to unblock them. If I go back to the original page with the script running it would send me to the static error page. If I turn off the main script, the original page doesn't list the other scripts yet. Now with the old one when I got to that static error page I could go in the recently blocked menu and allow them. I don't know where to do this now.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 10841
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: New noscript interface

Post by barbaz »

Teao wrote:The other things that's missing is where is the "recently blocked" list?
not ported yet
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-
Peter 123
Junior Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:27 am

Re: New noscript interface

Post by Peter 123 »

Teao wrote: The mouse over-text shows the same whether something is on or off. There is no *status* that says that it is currently temporarily allowed vs permanently allowed other than the color of a secondary icon.
[...]
When I want to "temporarily allow", in my head it means I do NOT trust it. If I trusted it, I would permanently allow it. That's the thing that is not intuitive.
You are right about this. That's the reason why to my mind mind there should be added an additional button for the option "temporarily allow".

I think this could easily resolve the problem. Every button/icon would have an exclusive function/meaning. And the current option chosen by the user is anyway shown in a clear way by the broad grey bar and the word written in it. For the additional button it could be something like "Temporarily allowed" (instead of "Trusted" as it is now).
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
Pansa
Senior Member
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:30 pm

Re: New noscript interface

Post by Pansa »

Peter 123 wrote:
Teao wrote: The mouse over-text shows the same whether something is on or off. There is no *status* that says that it is currently temporarily allowed vs permanently allowed other than the color of a secondary icon.
[...]
When I want to "temporarily allow", in my head it means I do NOT trust it. If I trusted it, I would permanently allow it. That's the thing that is not intuitive.
You are right about this. That's the reason why to my mind mind there should be added an additional button for the option "temporarily allow".

I think this could easily resolve the problem. Every button/icon would have an exclusive function/meaning. And the current option chosen by the user is anyway shown in a clear way by the broad grey bar and the word written in it. For the additional button it could be something like "Temporarily allowed" (instead of "Trusted" as it is now).
The problem is that this leads to interpretation conflicts because you would then have to show the same "checkmark list" for both temp trusted and perm trusted each influencing the other.
Which already is confusing people like hell that it is the same list for all the "trusted" buttons to begin with (although there the existence of custom indirectly implies at least that the others aren't domain specific, because what point would there be to HAVE a custom if all of them were custom)

I honestly don't really get why you are that resistant against a toggle?

And btw in terms of "trusted isn't allow"...
I disagree. You allow things that you trust. In the sense that you don't give permissions to things that you think will directly hurt you. Even if that is a temporary arrangement allowing things implies at least SOME level of trust in the outcome.
The same way that ns5 didn't call it temp allow and trust, but temp allow and allow.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
Teao

Re: New noscript interface

Post by Teao »

barbaz wrote:
Teao wrote:The other things that's missing is where is the "recently blocked" list?
not ported yet
cool, if it's coming soon, that's perfect. Is there an official "todo" list or "known issues" list somewhere?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
Peter 123
Junior Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:27 am

Re: New noscript interface

Post by Peter 123 »

Pansa wrote:
Peter 123 wrote: [...]
I think this could easily resolve the problem. Every button/icon would have an exclusive function/meaning. And the current option chosen by the user is anyway shown in a clear way by the broad grey bar and the word written in it. For the additional button it could be something like "Temporarily allowed" (instead of "Trusted" as it is now).
The problem is that this leads to interpretation conflicts because you would then have to show the same "checkmark list" for both temp trusted and perm trusted each influencing the other.
I assume that the checkmark list is this one:

Image

So the user has to (or may) choose which boxes he will check and which not. I do not really see which interpretation conflict you mean in case that "temporarily" and "permanent" were separated. Yes, there would exist an own checkmark list for "temp" and for "perm". You fill out the according list (or leave it as it is), e.g. when choosing the option "temporarily". When later on you decide to change from "temp" to "permanent", it would be logical that the configuration of the list would be retained as made in "temp" (I think that this is technically possible). In this respect "temporarily" and "permanent" should correspond. (But as the user has the checkmark list here again [under "permanent" now] he would be free to modify its configuration for the further use as "permanent".)

In other words:
What you (un)check in the list under the option "temporarily" should be kept when you later change to "permanent" - until you decide to modify it. And vice versa. I think so there would be no interpretation conflicts.
Pansa wrote: Which already is confusing people like hell that it is the same list for all the "trusted" buttons to begin with
O.K. That may may be a general problem but I do not think that it would increase with a separate, clearly distinguished option for (only) temporary permission.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
Pansa
Senior Member
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:30 pm

Re: New noscript interface

Post by Pansa »

. I do not really see which interpretation conflict you mean in case that "temporarily" and "permanent" were separated
Because the buttons are separate presets, apart from custom, which is why it is named custom.

default , untrusted , trusted, and custom.
in your case you have
2 buttons that are singular presets. (default and untrusted)
2 buttons that are next to each other sharing ONE preset, despite having two names and have different behaviour otherwise (trusted temp and trusted perm)
1 custom.

And when the toggle of the clock annoys you, why not make it 12 buttons ?
default, untrusted http, untrusted both, trusted temp https, trusted temp http, trusted temp both, trusted perm https, trusted perm http, trusted perm both, custom https, custom http and custom both
With the settings in the default column, of all trusted being the same in a line and all 6 columns, untrusted in all lines and the 2 columns, and custom being the same in the 3 columns, but NOT the lines.

What is wrong with a toggle per definition? Maybe it would help if you wouldn't actually have to click the clock but have a check-mark NEXT to the clock? Would that be better?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
Peter 123
Junior Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:27 am

Re: New noscript interface

Post by Peter 123 »

Things are already a little bit complicated (especially with the checkmark list), but I think you complicate them additionally, Pansa. ;)

So I will try to look at some issues separately (also in order to understand them better for myself):

1.
Pansa wrote: [...] the buttons are separate presets, apart from custom, which is why it is named custom.

default , untrusted , trusted, and custom.
Here I already have difficulties:

- When something is "Default", why do I have there also the possibility to change the settings? Normally the checkmark list (for "Default") should not be changeable. "Default" is "Default". If I want to change something I have the possibility to do it under "Custom". To my mind it is confusing that you can check or uncheck boxes also in the checkmark list of "Default".

- Maybe that to a certain degree this applies also to "Trusted" (either temporarily or permanent) and to "Untrusted". On the one hand I understand that it makes sense to allow or forbid only certain components (object, media, frame, font etc.) so that these two buttons need their own checkmark list. But one the other hand I still did not understand what's their relation to the (same) checkmark list under the button "Custom". Four checkmark lists (with the same elements inside) is too much.

2.
But that's anyway a different problem which to my mind has no connection with the question "permanent - temporarily in two buttons or not?"

You write:
in your case you have
[...]
2 buttons that are next to each other sharing ONE preset, despite having two names and have different behaviour otherwise (trusted temp and trusted perm)
[...]
Yes and no. ;)
These two buttons would be like two sides of a coin: either the one (trusted temp) either the other (trusted perm). From this point of view it makes sense (and it is even necessary, I would say) that they have ONE preset. This preset (of permission) applies either temporarily or permanent.
Concerning the names, they are not necessarily (completely) different. Both buttons would refer to a permission, to a trusted situation - so they have something in common. You could call them "Allowed (Trusted) permanent" and "Allowed (Trusted) temporarily". So the main part of the name could (and should) be the same.

And this brings me to the next point (and perhaps a solution):

3.
You write:
What is wrong with a toggle per definition?
Thinking about this question (in combination with what I mentioned above in Nr. 2) maybe that this could be a good solution too (perhaps even a better one ;)): not necessarily a separate button for "Temporary allowing", but something within a common button. But it should be made different from as it is now. Maybe I have a wrong understanding of the english word "toggle" but to my mind it should mean that I can see at first sight that I have two options, e.g. checking a box (called "permanent" or something like that) on the left side is the one option or checking another box (e.g. "temporarily") on the right side is the other option. If this happens "under" the same button, o.k. The problem is that the current solution with the clock (on which I have to click in order to change the status from "temp" to "perm" or vice versa) does not make sufficiently clear to me (and obviously to other users too) that this is the way to toggle.

Conclusion:
4.
Maybe it would help if you wouldn't actually have to click the clock but have a check-mark NEXT to the clock? Would that be better?
To my mind: yes! This would make the difference between the two options (and how to choose one of them) already quite better understandable. :D
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
Pansa
Senior Member
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:30 pm

Re: New noscript interface

Post by Pansa »

I think you misunderstood.
The clock, and the lock are both toggles.
They turn things on or off, and their appearance changes in respect to that change.

This whole argument to me is like claiming light switches are too complicated, why not have an ON button and an OFF button next to each other.

>- When something is "Default", why do I have there also the possibility to change the settings? Normally the checkmark list (for "Default") should not be changeable. "Default" is "Default". If I want to change something I have the possibility to do it under "Custom". To my mind it is confusing that you can check or uncheck boxes also in the checkmark list of "Default".

Because the default applies to pages BEFORE you make a rule.
And people have VASTLY diverging ideas of how those should behave.
We have pure black-listers here, who WANT every default domain to run everything, unless they choose to block them. Forcing them to actively make custom rules is NOT an option (whatever I personally think of the practice.)

>- Maybe that to a certain degree this applies also to "Trusted" (either temporarily or permanent) and to "Untrusted". On the one hand I understand that it makes sense to allow or forbid only certain components (object, media, frame, font etc.) so that these two buttons need their own checkmark list. But one the other hand I still did not understand what's their relation to the (same) checkmark list under the button "Custom". Four checkmark lists (with the same elements inside) is too much.

Because different people have vastly different ideas of how they want to make rules. Just because you can't think of them doesn't make them go away.
The issue here is that you aren't looking at internal consistency AT ALL. You don't care.
What you care about is having the interface reflect what YOU want, regardless of how inconsistent that is as a system.
"every button has it's ruleset available under it" is consistent.
"SOme yes some no, some multiple times in a line, some unique, some the same in some columns some not" is less consistent than "each in each line, same in each column except the one that explicitly is named "custom" (custom explicitly implying that it is DIFFERENT for each entry, because that is what that means, which inversely implies that the others are NOT custom.)

"everything that is drawn is a thing to click" is also consistent.
Some icons are buttons, some are non-interactive descriptors for unique but recognisable click elements next to them" is not.

>Maybe that to a certain degree this applies also to "Trusted" (either temporarily or permanent) and to "Untrusted". On the one hand I understand that it makes sense to allow or forbid only certain components (object, media, frame, font etc.) so that these two buttons need their own checkmark list. But one the other hand I still did not understand what's their relation to the (same) checkmark list under the button "Custom". Four checkmark lists (with the same elements inside) is too much.

Again.. It's so they are all the same, so it is easy to see that they all refer to the same thing. Namely the 8 different things NS can turn off and on contentwise.
Having some of them in some and others not is not consistent. It's hodgepodge.

That is also btw why the options has the same UI as the overlay. So that you can see that it is the same thing, once just for the page you are on, and once for all sites you ever made rules for.
Internal Consistency.

At best you are looking for consistency between ns5 and ns10 to some degree. That is not the point.
NS10 tries to be internally consistent with its language. And you can see that in the way the debug output is written.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
lancelot

Re: New noscript interface

Post by lancelot »

The toolbar icon does something completely random in 10.1.5.1: showing as fully allowed on partially allowed sites, disallowed on a site where the site address itself is allowed, etc. Especially on reloaded tabs when exiting and restarting Firefox, but on newly opened tabs as well.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
Post Reply