icon indicator for presence of only untrusted script
icon indicator for presence of only untrusted script
It would be useful if (optionally) the S was not blue (possibly white or something in between), to differentiate presence of whitelistable scripts from presence of only untrusted.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6
- Giorgio Maone
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9524
- Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm
- Location: Palermo - Italy
- Contact:
Re: icon indicator for presence of only untrusted script
It used to be this way.
Probably a regression from the tons of recent changes in icon feedback
Probably a regression from the tons of recent changes in icon feedback

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6
Re: icon indicator for presence of only untrusted script
Just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. I am referring to the color of the S in the icon, which indicates the presence or absence of scripts rather than the permissions state.
I had 1.9.8.8 (almost a year old) lying around, and it's the same, with respect to the above.
I had 1.9.8.8 (almost a year old) lying around, and it's the same, with respect to the above.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6
Re: icon indicator for presence of only untrusted script
Is the icon change in rc3 in response to this thread? If so then I didn't explain well what I was requesting. The scenario I had in mind is when the root domain is not untrusted, has no inline scripts, and all included scripts are untrusted. In this case it's good to know that the page has no scripts, other than the untrusted. The untrusted scripts are meant to be ignored, and knowing there are no others is useful indication that the page needs no NS configuration. This can be achieved by having the S if not white (same as no scripts at all) then perhaps some gradient from blue to white, or something to that effect, as long as there is some difference.
AFAICT, the change you made in rc3 is that when the root domain is untrusted, this fixed (no overlay variations) icon
is shown. Though that's not what I was asking for, I agree it's good to know that you are on an untrusted page, what's not so good is the icon itself and it's lack of overlay variations.
The color of the S is expected to indicate the presence of scripts, while the forbidden sign overlay, the trust state. In light of that, changing S to white (with a black background) is not a good signal for untrustedness. The icon also has no variations (embedding overlay, presence of scripts, others?) All this information is still useful on an untrusted site. A better approach, I think, if your willing to invest more time into this, is to have:
AFAICT, the change you made in rc3 is that when the root domain is untrusted, this fixed (no overlay variations) icon

The color of the S is expected to indicate the presence of scripts, while the forbidden sign overlay, the trust state. In light of that, changing S to white (with a black background) is not a good signal for untrustedness. The icon also has no variations (embedding overlay, presence of scripts, others?) All this information is still useful on an untrusted site. A better approach, I think, if your willing to invest more time into this, is to have:
- the forbidden overlay indicate extra distrust, maybe a thicker \ or an X instead of a \, or a different color
- while preserving all the variations the icon had before the change, S color, puzzle, whatever else
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6