New noscript interface

[bignoscriptfan]

thank you for the suggestion!!! -- installed 10.1.3 and disabled automatic updates, and things are working again!

[Pansa]

Okay. I have to say this interface is a bit unintuitive for someone switching from the previous version to this one.

The FAQ doesn't seem to have been updated yet.

I gather the clock on the 'trusted' button makes the trust temporary, but can't we just have an additional button that designates temporary permission with one click, instead of having to click trusted and then check the clock button next to trusted?

if the clock is solid it IS temporary (standard behaviour) if you click it, it goes transparent, which means it is a permanent rule.

[juozas]

There's an icon of NoScript that confuses me: It's an icon of with the "+" on bottom right corner of it. What is the purpose of it? It appears after a while when browsing the site/watching videos/etc. First normal then it changes to icon with a "+" on it.


Normal behaviour of NoScript on twitter


After a while, icon changes, some times with a wrong blocked/available script count, might it be a bug?


Some sites like youtube works ok for a while, or after switching tab, didn't check when it happens.

NoScript 10.1.5.1 on FireFox 57.0.1 on Ubuntu Linux 64bit

[Peter 123]

I think you misunderstood.
The clock, and the lock are both toggles.
They turn things on or off, and their appearance changes in respect to that change.

This whole argument to me is like claiming light switches are too complicated, why not have an ON button and an OFF button next to each other.

Yes, in the meantime I understand that the clock and the lock are toggles. But why choosing such a solution that confuses many people?
And I don't think that such buttons can be compared with light switches. But to discuss this would lead us too far away from the topic.

What is so bad about the idea you mentioned yourself?

Maybe it would help if you wouldn't actually have to click the clock but have a check-mark NEXT to the clock?

Obviously this (or something like that) would help many users (not only me) to handle this detail better.

[Pansa]

I think you misunderstood.
The clock, and the lock are both toggles.
They turn things on or off, and their appearance changes in respect to that change.

This whole argument to me is like claiming light switches are too complicated, why not have an ON button and an OFF button next to each other.

Yes, in the meantime I understand that the clock and the lock are toggles. But why choosing such a solution that confuses many people?
And I don't think that such buttons can be compared with light switches. But to discuss this would lead us too far away from the topic.

What is so bad about the idea you mentioned yourself?

Maybe it would help if you wouldn't actually have to click the clock but have a check-mark NEXT to the clock?

Obviously this (or something like that) would help many users (not only me) to handle this detail better.

Everything that isn't exactly like it was before confuses people.
This can be demonstrated easily by the posts in this forum if you compare the posts over the different versions of NS10 already.

If something is default after install, it rains "why isn't the other setting default, this is confusing" posts.
If it is switched 2 versions later it rains "why is that the default setting, if it was the other way around it would be less confusing" posts. (see exactly temp. it was that "perm" was the default, and people complained. now temp is the default, and people complain)
That's btw the core reason why apple and MS are so divided ecosystems.
Someone brought up in Windows can't for the life accept that what they think as "intuitively at the top of the window" can be ALWAYS at the top of the screen, and vice versa.

>And I don't think that such buttons can be compared with light switches.

It literally is the same thing. Do you press the same thing to toggle between on and off, with "it" showing it's state, or do you make 2 buttons and you press the one that does what you want, now.
You proposed a solutions with two buttons, where there currently exists a toggle/switch.
And the check-mark version was more about checking whether you were committed to that, because it would create a system that has a graphical element that opposed to all other graphical elements in the addon is NOT clickable, to present a solution that is closer to some users preconceived notions. It was a compromise I proposed, but it is still using internal consistency. Which means you have to treat it differently than the rest.

And all this "ns5 was so intuitive" talk is just factually not true. To me NS belongs on ANY users browser, but you can't do it, because it actually is a complicated tool. It was in NS5 and it still is.
If you want normal users to hate you, you install NS for them without telling them anything but "If something doesn't work, click on that button, and then make it work."
Most users think of "intuitive" as "I want to think something and then press anywhere without looking at it and make it work". You can't design for that.

[lolit]

There's an icon of NoScript that confuses me: It's an icon of with the "+" on bottom left corner of it. What is the purpose of it? It appears after a while when browsing the site/watching videos/etc. First normal then it changes to icon with a "+" on it.


Normal behaviour of NoScript on twitter


After a while, icon changes, some times with a wrong blocked/available script count, might it be a bug?


Some sites like youtube works ok for a while, or after switching tab, didn't check when it happens.

NoScript 10.1.5.1 on FireFox 57.0.1 on Ubuntu Linux 64bit

Same for me, i open site like google before there is The S (trusted site icon) afferma 1 or 2 seconds appears The S+. Also in other trusted site like facebook And twitter

[drizzt]

As for most people, i find the new UI to be difficult to understand, not so intuitive to know things do. I had to play around and experiment to figure out how to set a particular 'line' to temp allow as to perm allow (something like the previous UI tells you plain outright whether to allow or to temp allow, easier to know.) But a lot has been said already about that, and about allowing all on the page.

What i want to also add (i must admit that i have not had the chance to read all 15 pages of this thread yet, so i have not seen it mentioned) is that the new UI font is bigger, and the full URL is truncated, so you get something like "....site A" and "....site B', etc. sometimes i get two listings which looks the same since it is truncated. If it shows the full URL or a lot more of it, then you can see more of the what the URL actually is.

And, one big thing for me, no more export/import of settings and whitelist!! FF automatically updated (even though i set the add-on to "off' for auto updates of ext) NS when i updated to FF57, and it changed to have the default whitelist shown. I wanted to import my whitelist instead. And we do not need to see the complete whitelist shown there in the UI... put it in the settings (like prev version of NS) instead. I don't think it is helpful, well for me anyway. It seems like a lot of settings/options are no longer at our availability. Maybe this is due to FF and webkit and whatever, i don't know, i'm not a programmer, just saying.

[Pansa]

What i want to also add (i must admit that i have not had the chance to read all 15 pages of this thread yet, so i have not seen it mentioned) is that the new UI font is bigger, and the full URL is truncated, so you get something like "....site A" and "....site B', etc. sometimes i get two listings which looks the same since it is truncated. If it shows the full URL or a lot more of it, then you can see more of the what the URL actually is.

Those are the pagewide rules. Depending on the green lock or the red lock they apply to https://*page or both http://*page AND https.

If you haven't set a pagewide rule, you should also see the rules for explicit paths like https://www.page.com above it.

And, one big thing for me, no more export/import of settings and whitelist!! FF automatically updated (even though i set the add-on to "off' for auto updates of ext) NS when i updated to FF57, and it changed to have the default whitelist shown. I wanted to import my whitelist instead.

You can back up your ruleset in plaintext in the debug log in the options, or you can backup the file "storage-sync.sqlite" from your firefox profile folder.
As importing a whitelist, It is advisable to consider not importing the rules, because the old system didn't take the distinction between http and https that serious, and the rules that got imported automatically for me had to be revisited and reconigured in the new sheme anyway basically. It just inrcreases the chance to mess something up.

[Peter 123]

There is an other confusing detail in the interface.

I just started to read the very useful "Basic guide to NoScript 10": https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =7&t=23974 (Thanks to blublevita for writing it.)

There I find the following information / warning:

There are four scopes: Default, Trusted, Untrusted and Custom.
[...]

Be careful! Setting the categories of any of the Default, Trusted and Untrusted scopes changes its respective settings globally, not just for that domain. All domains will use these settings as soon as Firefox loads them.

Only the Custom scope allows different settings for different domains, as its name implies.

This is something I was not aware of and that a user would never expect on basis of the interface in its current structure.

In order to make clear what we are taking about: it is the following checkmark list:

[Suddenly pictures are not accepted here. So I cannot show it. Please take a look at the second picture in blublevita's guide.]

No one would expect that checking/unchecking a box (in this list) for a certain domain has an effect to all domains! (With exception of course the checkmark list for the Custom scope.)
Why is such a list in every line (= for every domain/subdomain)? When I check or uncheck something for a domain XYZ I expect that it applies only to this domain XYZ and not to all domains.

To my mind the logical structure should be something like this:
- There should be a single, general checkmark list (e.g. somewhere in the options) which determines the rules (concerning the permission of object, media, frame etc.) for all domains.
- Apart from this there would exist only one additional checkmark list for every domain/subdomain/line where I can determine specific rules especially for this domain/subdomain.

At the moment we have 4 checkmark lists in every line (for Default, Trusted, Untrusted and Custom) with obviously different (but unclear) functions and with a different range (the first 3 lists apply globally to all the domains and only the 4th refers individually to the line (= domain, subdomain) where it is located.

That's completely confusing and misleading.

[Pansa]

This is something I was not aware of and that a user would never expect on basis of the interface in its current structure.

And I completely disagree.
It's not like I'm a dev.
If there are 4 settings I can configure (because they all have checkmarks I can click), what do you think is custom then about "custom"?

That is the point with "intuition" you look at what is available, and then conclude and test for the behaviour that makes sense.

It makes no sense other than default, untrusted and untrusted to be scopes, and custom to be not.
If it was not like that, either there should be no checkmarks to replace in the three, OR the word "custom" makes 0 sense.
The word "custom" can only apply either to the checkmarks, or to the lines.
Thus since it obviously doesn't apply to the checkmarks (all 4 are "custom" in that sense) it CAN only apply to the lines. And if it applies to the lines, obviously the other 3 don't, because again, custom would make no sense.

If you actually look at all the things, there is only one sensible interpretation. And that is intuition and deduction as opposed to having to go by a set of written rules that can't be deduced, but have to be learned.

The rest of the post is again the difference between actual intuition, and trying to enforce a former system.
You want your preconceptions from a different interface to be conformed to, and even in a way that deprives other people from as quick an access to what they want over what you want. Because what you want is obviously more "right".

[Peter 123]

It makes no sense other than default, untrusted and untrusted to be scopes, and custom to be not.

But "Custom" is a scope too. See e.g. the following sentences in blunelvita's guide:

There are four scopes: Default, Trusted, Untrusted and Custom.
[...]
Only the Custom scope allows [...]

The rest of the post is again the difference between actual intuition, and trying to enforce a former system.
You want your preconceptions from a different interface to be conformed to, and even in a way that deprives other people from as quick an access to what they want over what you want. Because what you want is obviously more "right".

I would like to ask you to restrict your commitment to NoScript 10 to objective arguments which refer to the technical and functional aspects of this software. Please avoid to start judgments about what you regard my personal and psychological intentions to be satisfied or unsatisfied with certain features or characteristics of NoScript 10.

And if you read the comments here in this forum (or also outside from it) you will see that I am by far not the the only one who is confused by the new version. You should also think about why this happens.

[Pansa]

It makes no sense other than default, untrusted and untrusted to be scopes, and custom to be not.

But "Custom" is a scope too. See e.g. the following sentences in blunelvita's guide:

There are four scopes: Default, Trusted, Untrusted and Custom.
[...]
Only the Custom scope allows [...]

Sigh.
THen drop the effing word "scope", it's not in the interface to begin with.

default, trusted and untrusted are "groups" with members, and the rules apply to all members.
Custom is a setting that applies individually.

The first thing as you read the buttons should be to realise that there is a binary distinction. "custom" and "not custom". Because the word custom has MEANING.
Since you can customize the checkmarks in all 4, obviously that can't be what is custom about custom.
At which point you should already grasp that "default" makes no sense, if all things that are default (which means "not yet chosen to be something else") are different.
So if default makes no sense unless it applies to everything in it, and custom can't apply to the settings.....

The only logical conclusion is that changing the checkmarks on one line you set to custom should not apply to all the other customs (the lines being what makes it custom), and the default should apply to all of them. Because that is what default means if you obviously are allowed to change the checkmarks in it.

Which was awesome in 10.1.1, because right out of the gate clicking on a checkmark in custom switched that checkmark on in default.
Which was OBVIOUSLY a bug, because it made no sense in that system. Which you can only conclude because the system made sense to begin in the other aspects.

THe thing is when you just look at the information given, and take the words it gives you, there is really only one interpretation that works...
And what you propose is that instead of you looking at that, it should be the way you expect it without doing that.

>And if you read the comments here in this forum (or also outside from it) you will see that I am by far not the the only one who is confused by the new version. You should also think about why this happens.

Which is except for the people trying to help and trying to report bugs compromised of people having a problem. Which btw coincides with people who also frequently don't check whether a topic is already discussed 3 times on the first page..
And I don't know if you have, but I have read every single post made here since the release of 10.1.1 , and every change that was made to the behaviour off the addon between the version because "loads of people complained" spawned the direct opposite wave of people complaining about the inverse. Lots of people don't actually pay attention or don't look at things before they complain. That is what it is.

There just is a fundamental difference between something not being consistent in itself, and not what people are used to.
And things that are "not as they used to" will always spawn a lot of complaints, regardless whether they are actually internally consistent and concise in naming things.

[Guest]

Is there no longer a way to temporarily allow single sites to execute js? It seems I can allow *all* but not just one or two like I used tobe able to. I will note though: I really don't get this interface so it may be way over my head on how to do this. I just want to click something like Temporarily Allow SiteX and not open submenus and fiddle with checkboxes, and not even be able to see the whole URL, and click on allowing https or use normal protocol,etc.

Can I temporarily allow sites individually? (highlight two keywords)

If you have 10.1.3
you click on the "trusted" button in front of the rule that says "http(s)://this.individual.page" .
-> success!

Where is that?? I have 10.1.5.3, which is driving me crazy for other reasons, but I see nothing resembling that rule.

[Peter 123]

By the way:

Above I wrote:

No one would expect that checking/unchecking a box (in this list) for a certain domain has an effect to all domains! (With exception of course the checkmark list for the Custom scope.)
Why is such a list in every line (= for every domain/subdomain)? When I check or uncheck something for a domain XYZ I expect that it applies only to this domain XYZ and not to all domains.

To my mind the logical structure should be something like this:
- There should be a single, general checkmark list (e.g. somewhere in the options) which determines the rules (concerning the permission of object, media, frame etc.) for all domains.
- Apart from this there would exist only one additional checkmark list for every domain/subdomain/line where I can determine specific rules especially for this domain/subdomain.

I have the impression that the following statement by Giorgio in anther thread supports my point of view:

I do think it would be more intuitive to set the defaults on a separate menu (go to the NoScript Options page). Also, changing the default can be almost as bad as "allow scripts globally", so maybe a warning message???

That's a really good idea, and also probably moving the presets customizability (except from CUSTOM, maybe) away from the popup interface, keeping it only in the options. Maybe.

(see https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... 012#p93412)

[Headache]

So the virtually impenetrable and truncated lack of detail in the new version is Mozilla pushing discoverability and sleek icons over text and menus and intelligibility?

Can't figure out a thing with this new version, have no idea what I've allowed or not, used NoScript 99% for temporary permissions to do what I needed to and then revoking them; have lost that reassuring 'revoke all temporary permissions' in the new interface. Glad to have it so I can be on zippy FF, but feel like I'm completely at sea now.

All of this. 57 is fairly quick but all of the broken addons are a nightmare and NoScript completely changing has been a big ballache.

Speaking generally about software, I hate everything progressively turning to icons to cater to mobile devices. Give me some alt-text at least ffs.