New noscript interface

[DLawson]

I would like to know why extension developers were not brought on board early enough to update their extensions and avoid this catastrophe.

My (perhaps flawed) understanding watching from the wings is that there was lots of advance notice that the new API was coming, and there was lots of advance notice that the old API was being deprecated.

What there was NOT clear advance notice of was that the two would happen in the same FF release version.

Typically in software support you leave in the old for a transition time, and then delete it. Or, as appears to be the case with Quantum, you release a new version which is incompatible with the old, but keep the old version running for a transition time. (That is available here, but not easily.) That lets early adapters go in first, and others take a smoother path.

For whatever reason, Mozilla didn't take either of those courses, and had auto-update switch to the new architecture for everyone all at once.

Giorgio has both my admiration for the tool he's developed, and my condolences for having to deal with this nonsense. Well, also more admiration for actually dealing with it, instead of deciding it is too much of a headache.

[barbaz]

My (perhaps flawed) understanding watching from the wings is that there was lots of advance notice that the new API was coming, and there was lots of advance notice that the old API was being deprecated.

This is true. Problem is, the actual implementation of the new APIs was very rushed and last minute. Some of the APIs NoScript needs were not fully ready until Firefox 57 became release about two weeks ago - https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... 984#p89984

[JonbBADENSTEDT Bosa]

Just for once, it would have been great to be able to use both versions of Firefox side by side, until the problems are solved. I have installed 57 and found it's memory usage vastly superior to 56, but I can't use it because NoScript has lost the huge benefit of being able to allow scripts on a temporary basis at the click of a button. I can't use 57 until NoScript has that facility. Mozilla messed up and there's a chance it's user base will drop to the floor. What a waste of time and money for all concerned, especially all of the unpaid programmers who've been stuffed.

[Jim DAvis2]

So far, I'm having a good experience, no problems getting sites to work. Youtube is fine.

A little learning curve to figure out, but nothing seem broken.

Yeah, maybe allow all is missing, but I had to select that MANY times on the same site even with the previous version. Maybe this system will work better.

Could use a decent FAQ on what everything means, like MATCH HTTPS contend only (the green icon)

[Yakumo]

The menu's don't seem to work in incognito atm.

[dontwanttosoundungrateful]

The new GUI is on par with uMatrix now.

Extremely unintuitive.

Please i need help, if i browse a website for the first time and i want to allow scripts, i want it to be temporary, without noscript creating an permanent entry in the list.

Up until yesterday there was this clock symbol and it looked like it was "temporary" by default.

But now the clock symbol seems to have moved from the right to the left side and i seem to be unabled to even click it. It seems like every single website that i allow is permanently allowed.

Also, in the "settings" page (that offers no settings whatsoever) i miss a simple delete button, a delete button that just removes entries. Without having to set them to disallow or allow.

I just want to quickly remove old entries without a trace, how would i do that?

I really hope that this is a rushed core version and we will see something that looks remotely as good as the old noscript in the near future.

[dontcallme]

Duuuude... GIORGIO MAONE!

Please dude, PLEASE... make it as once - fuckin' WORKABLE!

Tell us you gonna return all the functionality NoScript had before the FF57, like see, actually fuckin' see what scripts are requested per domain, page and ability to allow/disallow them on the fly, both temporary or permanently.

Just tell us you'll do that. Look me in the eye and tell that!

Now for real, FF is unusable without NoScript!

[dontcallme]

I'm on FF52esr now with NoScript ver 5.1.7, but I noticed that it doesn't filter some website scripts as it used to before FF57 shitcrap arrived.

For example, once each website I used to visit and was using CloudFlare service, I could block the motherfucker's(CloudFlare) script through beloved NoScript - now I can't. NoScript don't list it. It just don't show anything about CloudFlare.

[imgoingdodo]

I've mulled a little over the shock of yesterday, and one thing stands out:

One has to have a whitelist, in order to use the "temporarily allow" function (tiny clock)? Yes?

Well, I think there are a lot of NS users who are well on the paranoid/cautious [potato/potaaaato] side of things and never used to work with whitelists. Literally nothing was trusted in my settings on the old NS.

SO: with the new interface - how would one go about with no whitelist (i.e. no need to beforehand have "trusted" or "untrusted" sites - everyplace you visit by defalt will be protected by NS, like before, automatically), to only temporarily allow certain or all scripts on a page? And then revoke? See, that's the rub. You get a very long list of addresses and names you'd normally not see in the old interface - and YOU, however ignorant you may be re such things, have to KNOW which it is you have to allow and which boxes you have to tick to make stuff work without allowing too much permission. And it more often than not turns into a muddle.

Cheers!

[imgoingdodo]

An additional design note:

For ordinary, everyday people - this interface may seem confusing because it's like taking a peek behind the curtains of something you just assumed worked intuitively on its own accord. Suddenly, you've got to know what's doing what and tinker with the nitty gritty of the machinery yourself - but you're not a mechanic. And you can eff up everything with your tinkering without an option to undo and return to standard settings (<!), because you've automatically changed the standard settings without knowing it. We rely on stuff being intuitive to understand them; certain symbols, colours and layout leads us to make certain interpretations and conclusions - as illustrated by the way many people interpreted the padlocks in the new UI for example.

And apparently, the old UI can't visually be replicated onto the new FF. Let's just accept that. (Feel sorry for Giorgio. The man's still working on NS inspite of the major WTF of Quantum. And it's for free. I admire that.) However, regarding the design, the concept of simplicity could surely still apply? Think of us poor idiots who's professions don't include throwing around the brickwork lingo of internet programmers and basically think of "dog with a stick" when we're faced with a box called "fetch". THAT's the level I think Giorgio should aim at when designing. Don't assume we know stuff he knows in your sleep. I honestly don't know what fetch does and why I should okay it, or block it; it was never an issue in the old version for me to know. It worked behind the scenes based on my preferences: only allow enough for a site to work to the degree I want, and only temporarily. But I didn't know exactly what was being blocked or allowed for it to function like that.

Please bear things like this in mind when working on the new NS. And best of luck!

[oldmoz]

Having a head-scratch over how to revoke all temporary permissions in a session.
I can often need this when I've opened too many different search lines in different tabs and want to
be sure nothing's running that I've forgotten about - - just in a single session.

Is it not available yet?

[imgoingdodo]

Having a head-scratch over how to revoke all temporary permissions in a session.
I can often need this when I've opened too many different search lines in different tabs and want to
be sure nothing's running that I've forgotten about - - just in a single session.

Is it not available yet?

Apparently you've got to close the browser to revoke temporary permissions. https://hackademix.net/2017/11/21/top-i ... ment-38469

Granted, not the smoothest option if you've got many tabs going? -Anyone who can clarify if there's a new solution to this?

[Dubird]

Is there someone that would be able to make a tutorial on the new interface? Because, yeah, it's not intuitive at all. For instance, what does the 'padlock' do? My first thought is that's how you make a permission permanent, but that doesn't work when I go back to a site. An actual tutorial would benefit all of us I think. Hell, if someone wants to send me the instructions I'll make one.

[MrWobbly]

From what I have read here and other places the interface is what it is and cannot go back to what it was.........I hope that it can/will be reworked (yes I understand there is a lot of other things that need to be fixed)
Two clicks for temporarily allow is foolish.

As a NON paying consumer I have little to no voice in this and can only say thank you for all of the years up to now of free extended security. It was wonderful.

I desperately hope that the creator/s of this wonderful program see that its popularity is based not just in its function and the security it gives but also in its form. Everyone could use it and it performed simply and well.

Thanks NoScript was AMAZING really and was one of the top things I would recommend to people, I hope it will be again.

Please dont make the mistakes of many tech giants these days and double down on something that doesnt work or isnt liked because you have put a lot of man hours into it, please dont let Noscript become the next Windows8 or iphone X.

Finally thank you for all your work past and present.

[oldmoz]

Apparently you've got to close the browser to revoke temporary permissions. https://hackademix.net/2017/11/21/top-i ... ment-38469

thanks for the confirmation there.
A link is worth a thousand words.
The option of restarting the whole tamn dab cluster and lose those search threads is exactly what I want to avoid - natch