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.