Frustrations

General discussion about the NoScript extension for Firefox
barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9145
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Frustrations

Post by barbaz » Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:34 pm

SyberCorp wrote:
barbaz wrote:6) Unfortunately the old layout is not technically possible in WebExtensions.
https://hackademix.net/2017/11/21/top-i ... ment-38469
I don't agree entirely. I have many add-ons that are NOT legacy, that STILL have their same menu-based layout that they did prior to FF57 (one example is 1Password).
barbaz wrote:Again, it isn't technically possible in WebExtensions. This was forced on Giorgio.
Again, I don't agree. I think this was mostly just a choice Giorgio made to redesign the interface, not that he HAD to go the route he went.
Disagreeing with facts just makes you look like a crank.

Giorgio was involved in designing the WebExtensions APIs. He would know if something is not technically possible.
SyberCorp wrote:
Pansa wrote:I looked into umatrix, and that imho is something entirely different. And I'm glad fine specific domain control is properly back.
My initial question is in response to your last statement, about uMatrix being "something entirely different". What do you mean? Both NoScript and uMatrix do exactly the same things - just different looking interfaces (in my opinion, uMatrix is ostensibly more confusing but is actually much more logical and friendly once you spend a few minutes with it).
Currently the only added benefits of NoScript 10 are its XSS filter and the ability to match HTTPS only. But as NoScript gets its features back, the old discussions on this subject will apply again - https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =8&t=22001
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

User avatar
SyberCorp
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:05 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Frustrations

Post by SyberCorp » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:01 pm

barbaz wrote:Disagreeing with facts just makes you look like a crank.

Giorgio was involved in designing the WebExtensions APIs. He would know if something is not technically possible.
I'm not being "cranky". Don't turn this into some personal debate - keep it professional.
Please, by all means, prove that it's a fact, and not just an over-simplification to pacify users into accepting that it was just easier, and explain to me how other vendors (again, I'll use 1Password as an example) were able to keep the look and feel of their extension prior to FF57, which is a menu driven UI that was not redesigned (visually, at least) to be FF57 compatible, if there is no technical way to have kept the old interface?
barbaz wrote:Currently the only added benefits of NoScript 10 are its XSS filter and the ability to match HTTPS only. But as NoScript gets its features back, the old discussions on this subject will apply again - https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =8&t=22001
That's fair about XSS, I suppose. uMatrix does have a "Strict HTTPS" feature, though. There are still other benefits to uMatrix vs. NoScript, though (at least, currently). For example, the ability to only allow scripts and such for a domain only while on a specific parent site (rather than globally); that it comes with filter lists that immediately block some of the known offenders (just like uBlock does) rather than leaving it completely up to users knowing who is known to be safe/unsafe; that the settings can be backed up/restored to/from the cloud (to make it easier to sync white/black lists between systems).
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9145
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Frustrations

Post by barbaz » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:22 pm

SyberCorp wrote:I'm not being "cranky". Don't turn this into some personal debate - keep it professional.
You are not a Mod here, comments like this from you will invite precisely the opposite of what you want. Please do not make any further comments of this nature.
SyberCorp wrote:Please, by all means, prove that it's a fact, and not just an over-simplification to pacify users into accepting that it was just easier, and explain to me how other vendors (again, I'll use 1Password as an example) were able to keep the look and feel of their extension prior to FF57, which is a menu driven UI that was not redesigned (visually, at least) to be FF57 compatible, if there is no technical way to have kept the old interface?
Those are based on Chrome extensions. Legacy extensions like NoScript Classic use XUL menus. WebExtensions cannot use anything XUL.

Case in point, Adblock Plus and Stylish used XUL menus and they couldn't keep their interface the same in WebExtensions, they had to start over from their Chrome versions.
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

User avatar
SyberCorp
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:05 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Frustrations

Post by SyberCorp » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:54 pm

barbaz wrote:You are not a Mod here, comments like this from you will invite precisely the opposite of what you want. Please do not make any further comments of this nature.
Exactly. You ARE a mod here... I shouldn't have to tell you to keep things professional. You're supposed to lead by example.
barbaz wrote:Those are based on Chrome extensions. Legacy extensions like NoScript Classic use XUL menus. WebExtensions cannot use anything XUL.

Case in point, Adblock Plus and Stylish used XUL menus and they couldn't keep their interface the same in WebExtensions, they had to start over from their Chrome versions.
My point is that vendors like 1Password (AgileBits) were able to make their XUL add-on and their WebExtensions look and act exactly the same. They didn't change the interface entirely, and cause mass confusion/hysteria or create a new learning curve. I don't understand why NoScript had to be a one-off and be completely re-designed, rather than just modified to be WebExtension compatible and keep the design.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9145
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Frustrations

Post by barbaz » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:16 pm

SyberCorp wrote:
barbaz wrote:You are not a Mod here, comments like this from you will invite precisely the opposite of what you want. Please do not make any further comments of this nature.
Exactly. You ARE a mod here... I shouldn't have to tell you to keep things professional. You're supposed to lead by example.
SyberCorp, your responses are textbook trolling. Take offense where there is none, then try to play mod and refuse to drop it when asked.

In the spirit of keeping things professional, not going to let this pattern continue.

Locking thread.
SyberCorp wrote:My point is that vendors like 1Password (AgileBits) were able to make their XUL add-on and their WebExtensions look and act exactly the same. They didn't change the interface entirely, and cause mass confusion/hysteria or create a new learning curve. I don't understand why NoScript had to be a one-off and be completely re-designed, rather than just modified to be WebExtension compatible and keep the design.
Some legacy extensions have an interface that's part HTML, those ones wouldn't have to change much on the user facing side in light of WebExtensions. NoScript Classic is not one of them.
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

Locked