Re: NoScript More Aggressive?
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:31 pm
From your responses, I think I can conclude a few things:
1) The use case for Temporarily allow all this page is for someone who inspects every site they allow and uses it as a shortcut for multiple Temporarily allow some-site.com commands.
2) The wording of Temporarily allow all this page is a little misleading -- all could mean "all forever", but it's actually "all currently known".
3) There is currently no mechanism to say "I give up -- just display everything from this site".
I think there could be some benefits from addressing these, however:
A) The pop-up menu for NoScript is already crowded. Adding two new #3's (one for Temp Allow and one for Permanent Allow) would be a bit much. If the pop-up was replaced with a dialog containing a table, it might be worth revisiting.
B) You can accomplish #3 by one or more uses of #1, so the functionality is available -- it's just a little cumbersome when sites have layers of loading.
C) Given what I glean about NoScript's implementation, I'm not sure how you would code #3. AFAIK everything in NoScript uses a specific site name. It might take some work to implement "allow these unspecified future sites".
So I think I'm convinced that, for the most part, it's not worth changing. However, I do think two things are worth clarification:
I) In the FAQ, you should explain that Temporarily allow all this page works for the scripts/embeds currently known and that multiple uses might be required if the site uses successive loading.
II) To clarify #2, you should rename Temporarily allow all this page to Temporarily allow all known this page. This indicates that if more becomes known, it is not covered by the first usage.
Thanks all,
-Foam
1) The use case for Temporarily allow all this page is for someone who inspects every site they allow and uses it as a shortcut for multiple Temporarily allow some-site.com commands.
2) The wording of Temporarily allow all this page is a little misleading -- all could mean "all forever", but it's actually "all currently known".
3) There is currently no mechanism to say "I give up -- just display everything from this site".
I think there could be some benefits from addressing these, however:
A) The pop-up menu for NoScript is already crowded. Adding two new #3's (one for Temp Allow and one for Permanent Allow) would be a bit much. If the pop-up was replaced with a dialog containing a table, it might be worth revisiting.
B) You can accomplish #3 by one or more uses of #1, so the functionality is available -- it's just a little cumbersome when sites have layers of loading.
C) Given what I glean about NoScript's implementation, I'm not sure how you would code #3. AFAIK everything in NoScript uses a specific site name. It might take some work to implement "allow these unspecified future sites".
So I think I'm convinced that, for the most part, it's not worth changing. However, I do think two things are worth clarification:
I) In the FAQ, you should explain that Temporarily allow all this page works for the scripts/embeds currently known and that multiple uses might be required if the site uses successive loading.
II) To clarify #2, you should rename Temporarily allow all this page to Temporarily allow all known this page. This indicates that if more becomes known, it is not covered by the first usage.
Thanks all,
-Foam