InformAction Forums

I think we're talking about several different things here. NoScript's site info for seeing a site's ratings of trustworthiness, etc. is a middle-click or shift-click on the name of a script in the menu. Keyboard shortcuts are configurable, but I don't know if there is one for that particular function. If not, Giorgio should be able to add one easily. Please add that feature to your request list, and when we've compiled a complete list, we can present him with one neat wish list instead of his having to sort through two very lengthy threads.

If anyone knows the keyboard shortcut to the NS Site Info, please jump in.

The other item is a Firefox feature, "Page info", accessed by context menu: right-click on a relatively empty area of the page and click "View page info".
This gives info about the various media, permissions, security, etc. Firefox has numerous keyboard shortcuts that can be found at http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Key ... 0shortcuts. Unfortunately, "Page info" is not one of them. There is a Customizable Shortcuts extension available for Firefox, which may be of great help if it is accessible. You could presumably create your own keyboard shortcuts to any particular feature.

By the way, many people don't know that you can do the same thing in Windows itself -- create a keyboard shortcut to any program, file, folder, executable, or just about anything else that can be accessed with the usual shortcut icons of the type found in the Start Menu, Desktop, etc.

I do not know if there is a configurable shortcut for it but I will search although I do not know exactly for what I am searching. What is on the page and how does it assess what is trusted and what is not assuming that is what it does? CTRL+P is the shortcut I think for the Firefox feature.

Identities Infinite wrote:I do not know if there is a configurable shortcut for it but I will search although I do not know exactly for what I am searching. What is on the page and how does it assess what is trusted and what is not assuming that is what it does? CTRL+P is the shortcut I think for the Firefox feature.

If you middle-click or shift+click on any item in the NoScript menu, you are taken to a page that offers several site ratings services:

WOT Scorecard, whose site is www. mywot.com
McAfee SiteAdvisor
Webmaster Tips Site Information
Safe Browsing Diagnostic
hpHost Report

Then you can click on any of those links, where they will display information gathered from the community or from their own database.

On my machine, CTRL+P opens the printer dialog box.

The Firefox feature identifies the source of images, audio-visual media, and other elements. It describes the settings for such Firefox features as whether pop-up is blocking enabled for that site, your cookie permission setting for that site, whether your location data are being shared, whether you have saved history or passwords from that page, and it also integrates the JSView add-on, so that script names can be read without having to open the JSView menu separately. I use it once in a while for diagnostics. I don't know if you are missing much, since images aren't an issue, except perhaps for web bugs, which Request Policy can block.

I meant to say CTRL+Shift+P. I used to use that from time to time. Am I missing much in regards to the NoScript thing? It seems external databases are never reliable for that type of thing. That is comparable to the Web Of Trust database I read about. If I have NoScript it is safe enough for me to personally assess it myself.

Identities Infinite wrote:I meant to say CTRL+Shift+P.

On both of my Firefoxes, 3 and 10, that starts a private browsing session. Actually, it opens a confirmation box asking, Would you like to start private browsing?
I don't use that, and may discuss my settings when I get around to posting the thread that you sent me privately and approved public posting.

Identities Infinite wrote: Am I missing much in regards to the NoScript thing? It seems external databases are never reliable for that type of thing. That is comparable to the Web Of Trust database I read about. If I have NoScript it is safe enough for me to personally assess it myself.

In doing support, I get asked to go to some places totally unknown to me, or users will ask about a particular site. I have found the mywot, or WOT, to be of some use. In one case, a commenter at WOT quoted a forum that identified a particular company's toolbar as not only spyware, but installs a virus as well.

In my own personal browsing, I tend to stay away from the dark side, or from the unknown and unaccountable. And I never allow any script or object unless I have to, regardless of trust, as previously discussed. Why waste the time and bandwidt, and increase the dangers from a legitimate site having been compromised?

If you have the capability to assess for yourself, then you don't need it. It was added as sort of a compromise for a literally unending string of user requests for NoScript to provide some sort of blacklist, or to color-code sites on its own - green = OK, yellow = questionable, red = dangerous. Obviously, one person, or a small team, can't assess a billion web pages. There was call for a community-generated list, which has the same issues that you mentioned. Anyone is free to create and publish one, but this forum is not going to endorse any such list. And a bigger issue is that new sites go online many times per minute. I've seen a shady site shut down one address and open up under a similar, but slightly different, address each time they got called out.

BIG PICTURE, which I intended to convey sooner or later anyway: There is a long-running issue between non-tech users, who want NoScript to do as much as possible for them with as little as possible configuration or decision-making on their part, and high-tech users, who want even more finely-grained control of things, regardless of the added complexity. Someone mentioned the possibility of a "basic" and "advanced" version, but it's already almost too much for one developer to keep this one tool up to date against new web threats, new Mozilla releases, etc. Two versions is one too many. Hence the attempt to help those who have difficulty making trust decisions on their own. Keeping this BIG PICTURE issue in mind may be illuminating as other topics come up.

JAWS says that is the shortcut when it reads the item in the Tools menu but it does nothing when I test it. Oh well, you understand what I meant haha.

I consider myself an almost high-tech user. If I was one I would completely understand how to write ABE rules. Other than that and the visual aids I think I understand more than the novice but if I as a novice made it this far anybody else can. I started to use NoScript with a considerable amount of knowledge so I think that served ample assistance. I want anything advanced Giorgio incorporates but I will not persist after making a suggestion because I am aware of and fully understand his time constraints. NoScript in itself is not basic; it is advanced no matter how anybody sees it. The entire concept is advanced so to have a basic version that compromises security is contradictory. The advanced portion is located in about:config and since there is not a published list of the non-GUI names, default values and their purpose I do not know about them as of now.

Identities Infinite wrote:JAWS says that is the shortcut when it reads the item in the Tools menu but it does nothing when I test it. Oh well, you understand what I meant haha.

If you mean, to start private browsing, it does things, but things not visible to anyone, including to JAWS. It has the same effect as Firefox Tools, Options, Privacy tab, and checking "Automatically start Firefox in a private browsing session", without having to restart Firefox. I tried that just now, and it wiped all my cookies, including to this forum, so I'll have to log in again to post this message. So it does something, but does not display a visual indicator, either to the sighted user or to JAWS.

So-called Private Browsing is NOT anonymous browsing. The Mozilla page on Private Browsing, with clickable sub-links, is here.

Here are my own, PERSONAL settings on the Privacy tab. Everyone's mileage will vary. (slang expression for different opinions)

The first item focused after clicking Tab on the Privacy page is "Firefox will .... Use custom settings for history", although I don't know how to use a dropdown window without a mouse or touchpad. Tab just moves it to the next setting. Which is the checkbox for "Do Not Track" in later versions. In F3, that is not present, and it continues to the next checkboxes, which are:
Use private browsing mode
Remember my browsing history
Remember download history
Remember search and form history

These may be convenient or necessary for you, but each poses possible privacy leaks, so I uncheck them all. Then:

Accept cookies from sites, which is checked.
Accept third-party cookies, NOT checked.
Keep until (dropdown window again) = Ask me every time. When a site offers a cookie, I either "accept for session only", or "block", with the dialog box default-checked to "remember this setting for all cookies from this site". Over time, this builds a list in the Exceptions box for cookies, much like NoScript's whitelist, except that both "Allow for session" and "Block" show up in it. One can edit this by removing or adding either type of entry manually. Yes, it would be nice if NoScript whitelist were similar.

Next, I check "Clear history when Firefox closes", and in the Settings box, I check everything. This may not meet your needs, to have all cookies, passwords, search terms, etc. erased.

Next, "when using the Location Bar, suggest ... (dropdown window) Nothing, because it can't suggest things unless it stores history of visited sites.

Anyway, that's what works for me. All a matter of individual choice.

Your tech level is well beyond that of the average home user. What's missing in most cases isn't the tech knowledge, it's the willingness to take a little time to familiarize oneself with a new security product, as one would with a new car.

Common scenario: "I love NoScript, but my spouse/parent/child/significant other can't be bothered. So I allow scripting globally for that person's user account, and use NoScript to the max myself."

No non-driver would think of trying to drive a car without some kind of instruction first. The Internet may not kill you, as a vehicle accident might, but it can drain your bank account, steal your identity, ruin your credit and reputation ... You'd think people would be willing to learn how to "drive" the Internet safely, but most either aren't aware of the danger, or ignore it, thinking "It can't happen to me". It can. It does.

Identities Infinite wrote:The advanced portion is located in about:config and since there is not a published list of the non-GUI names, default values and their purpose I do not know about them as of now.

Many of them can be researched through Firefox Help online, although I am not very impressed with that Help site overall.

To you those are drop-down windows but they are technically combo boxes. I use Up and Down Arrow keys to navigate their items. I do not accept 3rd-party cookies either but the ask every time option is something for me to ponder.

I meant about:config settings specifically pertaining to NoScript. I never liked that help site either; it never helped me much but yet this forum parses the word and directs to it {laugh}.

Identities Infinite wrote:To you those are drop-down windows but they are technically combo boxes. I use Up and Down Arrow keys to navigate their items.

Something else new learned today! It's amazing how much one can learn by being open to those with other viewpoints. Thank you.

I meant about:config settings specifically pertaining to NoScript.

Many of those are found in the NoScript FAQ. Have you finished perusing that yet?

I never liked that help site either; it never helped me much but yet this forum parses the word and directs to it laugh.

It directs to the specific article regarding about:config. I've explained in another thread why it's parsed when written by moderators.

I find the main Firefox help page and its search tool to be inefficient and sometimes useless.

I read the FAQ, Features and Change Log pages from top to bottom which really makes no logical sense for the latter for obvious reasons. There is also that [NS] thread explaining about 13 of the settings and I think your mention of a CHM file which I would read from start to finish. I have have always liked those things.

Identities Infinite wrote:... your mention of a CHM file which I would read from start to finish. I have have always liked those things.

Another of the million things on Giorgio's to-do list. That list would probably wrap around the world at the equator. [laugh]

Incidentally, I meant to reply somewhere where you cited Microsoft's extensive commitment to accessibility. I have been a Microsoft-basher for many years, but I agree that this is one area in which they are to be commended. Being a global technology company, with gross revenues in 2011 of almost 70 billion dollars US, and tons of interns who eagerly work there (I understand those interns wrote much of Windows code, which explains a lot ha ha), they certainly *should* take all reasonable steps to maximize accessibility for all levels of ability.

Please contrast this with a freeware product (two, actually; Giorgio's other popular freeware download is Flashgot), created by a single developer, with only a part-time, volunteer support staff, and a full-time real job at his software company that he founded. Still, when we get your wish list finalized, I'm sure he'll try to implement as much of it as possible. He/we can't do the research on what's needed, so your input is invaluable in making NoScript more accessible to all visually-impaired users, who may not have your determination to make this indispensable tool work for them. So we are in your debt.

p. s.: Since there are different definitions of "billion", I'm using the US meaning of one thousand million, or ten to the ninth power.

On that topic: Will JAWS read, and are you familiar with, the convention for using exponents on plain-text pages where superscripts are not possible? The carat sign (spelled c a r a t, no relation to the vegetable, smile), which is shift+6 on my keyboard, is like an angle bracket, except that it points upward instead of to the left or right. The convention is that ten to the ninth power would be written as ten carat sign nine (I spelled that out), or symbolically, like this: 10^9. Did JAWS read the last instance correctly, and does this work for you?

Incidentally, I meant to reply somewhere where you cited Microsoft's extensive commitment to accessibility. I have been a Microsoft-basher for many years, but I agree that this is one area in which they are to be commended. Being a global technology company, with gross revenues in 2011 of almost 70 billion dollars US, and tons of interns who eagerly work there (I understand those interns wrote much of Windows code, which explains a lot ha ha), they certainly *should* take all reasonable steps to maximize accessibility for all levels of ability.

They have some thing called MSAA implemented in Windows [not sure about XP]. I am not exactly sure when it comes in handy for my activities so I can not speak on their efforts too much. Windows is accessible and honestly I really like 7 much more than XP. I despised the search box everywhere I navigate but have learnt to use it and like it – especially in the Start Menu above my list of pinned programs. The one thing I do not like is the capabilities of pinning to the Task Bar [they tried to immitate the Macintosh I read]. I unpinned everything because I can not discern what is there and what is in use if I have something open. Internet Explorer has a dedicated group of people focused on accessibility and that is why I never had problems with that and JAWS.

Please contrast this with a freeware product (two, actually; Giorgio's other popular freeware download is Flashgot), created by a single developer, with only a part-time, volunteer support staff, and a full-time real job at his software company that he founded. Still, when we get your wish list finalized, I'm sure he'll try to implement as much of it as possible. He/we can't do the research on what's needed, so your input is invaluable in making NoScript more accessible to all visually-impaired users, who may not have your determination to make this indispensable tool work for them. So we are in your debt.

I use that too. Actually since the people at Internet Download Manager granted me a lifetime licence in return for a little spot on an external page on my blog I do not use it as much any more because they said Internet Download Manager would not work correctly. Ever since I started to use FlashGot I liked it.

p. s.: Since there are different definitions of "billion", I'm using the US meaning of one thousand million, or ten to the ninth power.

On that topic: Will JAWS read, and are you familiar with, the convention for using exponents on plain-text pages where superscripts are not possible? The carat sign (spelled c a r a t, no relation to the vegetable, smile), which is shift+6 on my keyboard, is like an angle bracket, except that it points upward instead of to the left or right. The convention is that ten to the ninth power would be written as ten carat sign nine (I spelled that out), or symbolically, like this: 10^9. Did JAWS read the last instance correctly, and does this work for you?

I was about to attempt to sort the ambiguity but you did it for me. Haha yes it does. They read the same. It is comparable to an upwards arrow I am guessing. There are, belive it or not, Unicode characters for arrows both single and double-headed. One of the many flexible facets of JAWS is its pronounciation dictionary. If the ETI-Eloquence says something I can change or add any symbol or word to be spoken however I want it to.

Identities Infinite wrote:Internet Explorer has a dedicated group of people focused on accessibility and that is why I never had problems with that and JAWS.

Have you been in contact with Mozilla about any accessibility enhancements to Firefox, or is Firefox satisfactory as-is? I'm sure that they too are committed to accessibility, but it is input from users like yourself that motivates and guides this.

Tom T. wrote: The carat sign (spelled c a r a t, no relation to the vegetable, smile), which is shift+6 on my keyboard, is like an angle bracket, except that it points upward

It is comparable to an upwards arrow I am guessing.

Yes, except that this arrow has no shaft, which is why I used angle brackets as a reference. Rotate an angle bracket 90 degrees so that it faces upward, and you have a carat, except that the carat is smaller and is placed higher in the horizontal plane of the line, somewhat simulating a superscript.

So, what literally does JAWS say when it reads the following? 6.023x10^23

There is only one single entity employed who is blind. Marco Zehe is his name and he is based in Germany. He used to work for Freedom Scientific, the company who develops JAWS. I contact him often but as a downside of open-source software there is nobody who I can contact directly who will really accomplish anything. I really dislike the community contact system software such as Firefox uses.

JAWS says 'six point zero two three x ten caret twenty three'. It is interesting how the synthesiser controls numbers: after your fullstop it says the digits but after the caret it speaks the number in full. I can control how numbers are spoken but really never cared enough to really mess with it.

Identities Infinite wrote:JAWS says 'six point zero two three x ten caret twenty three'. It is interesting how the synthesiser controls numbers: after your fullstop it says the digits but after the caret it speaks the number in full.

When reading decimal-point numbers aloud or to myself, those after the decimal point (or full stop - British!) are read individually. Pi = three point one four, not three point fourteen. Because what happens if you take it to 3.14159? Three point fourteen thousand one hundred fifty-nine -- that's silly. Not to mention 3.141592653589..... etc.

Did you recognize that number I gave you as being Avogadro's number, or at least the approximation used when I was in school more years ago than I care to admit? [laugh] Seems that with greater accuracy, it now rounds down to 6.022 vs. 6.023. Still, I'm pleasantly surprised that I remembered it at all. [laughing heartily]

Can JAWS be trained to recognize when x is being used as a symbol for "mulitplied by" or "times", as in the previous example?