Back to Firefox 56

General discussion about the NoScript extension for Firefox
guillotrined
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:25 pm

Back to Firefox 56

Post by guillotrined » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:40 pm

I have been using NoScript since around the time it was first released for Firefox. I find the program invaluable. I think many of those who use it routinely know how much it has changed browsing the web. As far as I'm concerned (and I imagine many others), browsing without NoScript is unacceptable.

But I have found NoScript 10 to be such a huge step backwards that I can no longer use Firefox 57. I've browsed the forum in an attempt to identify if anyone else feels similarly and it would appear that I'm not the only one with a complaint.

The argument that it's a "free" program holds no water; there are many programs that are "free" that I would never use or install on my computer because they would be destructive and counter-productive. "Free" does not imply worth. Despite NoScript 10 being free, I found it to be more hindering than not having it at all.

Besides that fact, there are many people who donate money to the worthy cause of NoScript, which further counters the "free" argument. In other words, people DO pay money for NoScript; the argument is whether or not that payment is compulsory. Fortunately, it's not. I hope it stays that way.

I don't want to sound unappreciative of all the hard work that's gone into NoScript. As I made clear in my first paragraph, it's an invaluable program. But because I find NoScript to be so important and because I find NoScript 10 to be so problematic, I'm forced to use an older version of Firefox.

I suppose I'm writing this both to vent my frustration and also to implore the designer of NoScript to reconsider the benefits of earlier versions of NoScript in progressing forward. Hopefully we'll see a better version in the future.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0

barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9140
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by barbaz » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:06 pm

NoScript Classic will be supported until June 2018, feel free to continue using it.
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

KT66
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:04 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by KT66 » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:25 pm

I've never been moved to register for a tech forum, but I see I'm not alone in being disappointed with NoScript 10. I've used NoScript for years and wouldn't want to be without it, but this latest version is hopeless. It doesn't save permissions, the interface is appalling and I'm forever closing XSS pop ups. It's driving me up the wall.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

guillotrined
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:25 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by guillotrined » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:59 pm

KT66 wrote:I've never been moved to register for a tech forum
Same here. As you can see above, this thread was my first post on the forum. The only reason I posted was because of how appalled I was at the newest iteration of NoScript. I understand that between a confluence of loyalty to the creator and keeping a stiff upper lip no matter how bad something might get, there are many who will simply accept it as it is. But I don't think that's fairly assessing NoScript 10 as a program; instead, it's apologizing for something very flawed.
I see I'm not alone in being disappointed with NoScript 10.
This is also why I decided to post. I'm not the only one to express their immense disappointment with NoScript 10. I do question why the designer made the choices that he did. I understand that people often want to try something new or be cutting edge, but ease of use and quality should not be sacrificed to make that happen.
I've used NoScript for years and wouldn't want to be without it, but this latest version is hopeless.
And that's why I gave up on Firefox 57. I liked Quantum but it's not worth browsing without a working NoScript.

I'm imploring the designer to readopt the old interface of NoScript 5 and incorporate it into Firefox 57 (at least for those of us who are dismayed with NoScript 10). While the new design may have been an interesting effort, I find it to be unusable and I hope that if enough complain, he'll change it. Some of us have donated based on what NoScript was and I think it's fair to ask that those people are listened to.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0

barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9140
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by barbaz » Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:16 pm

guillotrined wrote:I'm imploring the designer to readopt the old interface of NoScript 5 and incorporate it into Firefox 57 (at least for those of us who are dismayed with NoScript 10). While the new design may have been an interesting effort, I find it to be unusable and I hope that if enough complain, he'll change it. Some of us have donated based on what NoScript was and I think it's fair to ask that those people are listened to.
Unfortunately the old interface is not technically possible in WebExtensions.

https://hackademix.net/2017/11/21/top-i ... ment-38469
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

guillotrined
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:25 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by guillotrined » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:41 pm

Unfortunately the old interface is not technically possible in WebExtensions.
I read the link you posted and there is no explanation as to why the UI is technically impossible. Furthermore, I simply have a hard time believing that (Mozilla has managed to code something that prevents others from coding interfaces?).

When he stated that it was "technically impossible", what he meant was likely is that in upgrading Firefox from 56 to 57, the original code that generated that UI was no longer compatible and thus, he'd have to start from scratch to create a similar UI. I have a very hard time believing that for some reason, Firefox 57 prevents boxes and texts in an extremely specific way. In any case, even if it did, to insinuate that a similar UI is also impossible would be to claim that the Mozilla programmers have pretty much gone out of their way to target NoScript.

I'm willing to admit ignorance as to all the ins-and-outs of web programming and so, if someone can provide a more cogent explanation than it's just "technically impossible", I'm more than happy to listen. Otherwise, I have no reason to think other than what I've stated above.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0

barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9140
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by barbaz » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:46 pm

The old UI uses XUL menus. Firefox 57 no longer allows XUL extensions. WebExtensions can basically only do HTML popups and pages. NoScript needed a complete UI overhaul to deal with that.

So, yes, you are right, Mozilla has managed to code something that prevents others from coding interfaces.
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

scocasso
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:06 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by scocasso » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:38 pm

The new interface is not easy to figure out.
When I first opened it there seemed to only be three options for an address: make it Trusted, make it UnTrusted, or Custom.
I visited the noscipt site to see how to Temporarily Allow an address, but couldn't find any info on how to do that.
I'm pretty computer savvy but after a number of days of not being able to find the answer, I had to disable noscirpt.

Only today did I finally figure it out: if you want to temporarily allow an address, first you must click Trusted, then the Trusted symbol turns into a greyed-out clock, then you must click the clock to make it Temporarily Allow. On top of that, if you want return it to the default setting you must click the noscript symbol on the left of the address, or revoke all temporary permissions. Very unintuitive.

The Default button should be moved next to the others, and the temporary allow button made a separate button so the choices next to an address would be like so:

Default |Temporarily Allow | Trusted | Untrusted | Custom

image being blocked, here's the link to it, see if that works...

Thus, there would be five buttons in the centre for each address rather than the current three.
No fancy icons needed, just put a box around the chosen one, fade the others, and the text describing it to the left.
Last edited by scocasso on Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

billve
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:50 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by billve » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:02 pm

Thanks to scocasso for helping me understand how to temporarily allow a site. I *never* would have figured that out!

I, too, share in the frustration over this step backwards in usability, although I understand that the new technical foundation limits options.

One thing that would be *immensely* helpful would be if you could list the web site that is being block/allowed. That should be perfectly feasible, as I understand the limits. I have used NoScript for years (and donated repeatedly). I make a habit of selectively allowing only those portions of a site's functionality that are required, e.g., allow jetblue.com, but not doubleclick.net. I also selectively allow sites like cloudfront, only to the specific servers I've been assigned.

With the current interface, you get a list where you can selectively allow or deny, but nothing to indicate which line item is which. There is nothing to the right of the buttons, where I would expect a domain name, effectively re-creating the functionality of the old "options" button that would always appear in the lower right of the window.

Do what you can! I'll stick with you for a while, but ultimately, what we have now is not usable! It would probably put me over the edge finally, into picking a different browser...

-BVE
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

Paolo
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:37 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by Paolo » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:49 pm

The new UI is somewhat confusing but it's not a big deal. The real problem is that sites that used to work in Firefox 56 with a few Grant Temporary Permissions don't work anymore, sometimes even after spending minutes trying several combinations. The problem is that there are now too many fine grained permissions. Script, Object, Media, Frame, Font, Webgl, Fetch, Other. I managed to tame YouTube (but it lost them) after fishing for options.

We would need something that works as easily and reliably as the old NoScript. Then I won't matter if the new menu looks worse than the old XUL one.

I hope these are teething problems that can be solved with patience and collaboration. Can we help Giorgio with some testing and UX advice? Giorgio, what kind of help do you need from us?
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/62.0.3202.89 Safari/537.36 OPR/49.0.2725.39

guillotrined
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:25 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by guillotrined » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:00 pm

barbaz wrote:The old UI uses XUL menus. Firefox 57 no longer allows XUL extensions. WebExtensions can basically only do HTML popups and pages. NoScript needed a complete UI overhaul to deal with that.

So, yes, you are right, Mozilla has managed to code something that prevents others from coding interfaces.
I feel like you're missing my point (or I'm not conveying it properly).

It is not relevant that the old UI uses XUL menus. My point is that stating that the old UI is "technically impossible" actually means that it's incompatible with Firefox 57's new coding. That doesn't mean that the old UI is impossible to replicate (or something similar), it means that it's impossible to directly translate the code. That should be obvious; I can't take a program I've written for Windows 3.1 and expect it to work flawlessly on Windows 10. However, with enough time and effort, I could very likely replicate the UI via writing new code.

In any case, regardless of whether or not people like the UI, there are other problems with NoScript 10 (as has been evidenced by other posters on this thread). For myself at least, they are problematic enough that I must continue using NoScript 5 if I wish to browse the web. I do, however, think that the UI has a great deal to do with NoScript 10's problems (I find it unintuitive and clunky).

I hope that helps clarify my point.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0

barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9140
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by barbaz » Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:04 pm

guillotrined wrote:It is not relevant that the old UI uses XUL menus. My point is that stating that the old UI is "technically impossible" actually means that it's incompatible with Firefox 57's new coding. That doesn't mean that the old UI is impossible to replicate (or something similar), it means that it's impossible to directly translate the code. That should be obvious; I can't take a program I've written for Windows 3.1 and expect it to work flawlessly on Windows 10. However, with enough time and effort, I could very likely replicate the UI via writing new code.
I know, I get it. There is no way for a HTML page popup to behave the same way as a XUL menu. HTML simply isn't as powerful as XUL. Disappointing that the WebExtensions limitations killed off useful functionality. :(
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

scocasso
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:06 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by scocasso » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:36 am

Paolo wrote:The real problem is that sites that used to work in Firefox 56 with a few Grant Temporary Permissions don't work anymore, sometimes even after spending minutes trying several combinations.
That too!

I clicked 'Temporarily Allow All This Page" ten times on some sites, and nothing. I tried individually setting each of the permissions for the addresses listed, and nothing happens - the settings merely revert to the way they were and that's it. Well, I'm sure they have bugs/kinks to work out.
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

guillotrined
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:25 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by guillotrined » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:54 am

scocasso wrote:I clicked 'Temporarily Allow All This Page" ten times on some sites, and nothing. I tried individually setting each of the permissions for the addresses listed, and nothing happens - the settings merely revert to the way they were and that's it.
I realized in my postings I've been harping a lot on the UI (I think it's a step backwards from the old UI) but there are some fairly significant bugs as well that prevent me from using NoScript 10. The one you mentioned here effectively kills NoScript 10, regardless of the UI. I had the same problem and I thought it was something I was doing wrong but have since realized it was a major bug obfuscated by the confusing UI. That might be why I have such an issue with the UI - I feel like I can't really tell whether or not I've appropriately blocked (or temporarily blocked) a script.

If it were only an issue of the UI, I would just struggle through it. It wouldn't be my first time using a good program with a bad UI.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0

Pansa
Senior Member
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:30 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by Pansa » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:51 pm

The problem is that with the jumps between versions, sometimes core settings got borked and stay borked, even if the bug causing it is already fixed an gone.

Especially the permissions for the presets have sometimes changed (sometimes to ones that makes no sense) because in one version or another switching something on purpose changed something that is supposed to be unrelated without you noticing.

There are a lot of posts in the support forum dealing with this, and telling users WHAT they need to change back.
Sometimes when temp allow doesn't work, is because the "trusted" group just doesn't have permission to do things.

Checking the checkmarks now and again, or looking into the debug output helps with that.
If under trusted: capabilities there is nothing allowed, then no script allows nothing for things you trust.

If something seems "not working" the best first step is to create a second FF profile, and install the newest version in there to check. If it works there, some settings are borked.

edit:
and with newest I mean
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... /versions/

Except today, today I would advice sticking with 1.3c3 and fixing the settings yourself, because in 1.3 there is a slightly annoying UI bug https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =7&t=23942
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

Post Reply