New noscript interface

[Guest]

In 10.1.3, every time I click the NoScript button in the toolbar, the Firefox window gets wider by a few pixels on the right side. It's actually resizing my Firefox window. Don't do that, please.

Today I'm having the same problem, can't really see my scroll bar though I can still scroll (so far). Yesterday the opposite happened: every time I clicked the NoScript icon the window resized to less than maximum. I was guessing there was just something buggy going on and thought at first today the problem was solved, but maybe "changed" would be a better word.

Also--though this may not be connected--yesterday I had a page temporarily allowed, which I expected to allow again today but found already allowed when I went to make the adjustment. I hope, again, that was just something buggy, as I would hate to have to remember to cancel all temporaries manually.

But thank you! It is getting easier, and I appreciate everything.

[Pansa]

My noscript icon no only resizes my browser window and doesn't function. What's going with this?

If it minimizes the window into windowed mode it usually also opens the overlay in a new window.
If you are in windowed mode the icon should just work fine (apart from extending the window one pixel to the right.

A fix is incoming (supposedly today)

[Guest]

Today I'm having the same problem, can't really see my scroll bar though I can still scroll (so far). Yesterday the opposite happened: every time I clicked the NoScript icon the window resized to less than maximum. I was guessing there was just something buggy going on and thought at first today the problem was solved, but maybe "changed" would be a better word.

To clarify: clicking the NoScript icon still switches the window from maximized to something else, theoretically sizable, but the something else is now larger rather than smaller than full screen.

[Teao]

The clock on the google line is cause I hit temporarily allow all clock on a different page. Notice the first line has no clock at all to click on. How would I set the first line in my pic to be temporarily allowed but not the second line. (And I don't want to temporarily allow all and then set the 2nd line back to default, then that script runs once which defeats the whole purpose) When I go to certain sites I want to pick the minimal scripts to allow temporarily.

No, the other lines have no clock, because they are set to default, and there is no setting for "temporary default".

You set something to trusted or custom, and the current standard behaviour is that the clock is automatically active this creating a temp rule, unless you click the clock again.
The clock is always there on custom and trusted, it is either in the fore, or in the back (translucent) depending whether you want the rule to run out after a time, or not.

Compare it with bo belams post.
All trusted rules show the clock either translucent or filled in.

I'm not trying to set a default.
I think you don't understand what I am trying to do.
In the old interface when I went to a page it would list every site where script was being pulled.
I could click allow all from this page temporarily which I rarely did.
I could also go down a list of like 10 sites listed and say temporarily allow for 3 of the 10 sites having to click on each of the 3 to temp allow for those 3. Next time I opened the browser to go to the same page they would all be denied again. This is exactly what I want to still do.

[Pansa]

I'm not trying to set a default.

I didn't say you wanted that.
I just told you why you don't see more clocks in the picture that was posted.
You don't see clocks on sources that are set to default.
If you look at other peoples pictures, you will find that the clock is visible on sources set to trusted and custom.

I think you don't understand what I am trying to do.

I do. Which is why I am first trying to tell you what your misinterpretation of the picture was, and then tell you the solution to your problem.

In the old interface when I went to a page it would list every site where script was being pulled.
I could click allow all from this page temporarily which I rarely did.
I could also go down a list of like 10 sites listed and say temporarily allow for 3 of the 10 sites having to click on each of the 3 to temp allow for those 3. Next time I opened the browser to go to the same page they would all be denied again. This is exactly what I want to still do.

Then why don't you do that.
Click on trusted, see that the clock is dense, visible and not translucent, and you have a temp rule till you restart Firefox.

I merely told you that pointing at the default rule and going "there is no clock there" is expected behaviour.
If you click on trusted on anything you want to allow, the clock appears, because "temp" is a setting for trusted and custom, but NOT for default.

[Teao]

I'm not trying to set a default.

I didn't say you wanted that.
I just told you why you don't see more clocks in the picture that was posted.
You don't see clocks on sources that are set to default.
If you look at other peoples pictures, you will find that the clock is visible on sources set to trusted and custom.

I think you don't understand what I am trying to do.

I do. Which is why I am first trying to tell you what your misinterpretation of the picture was, and then tell you the solution to your problem.

In the old interface when I went to a page it would list every site where script was being pulled.
I could click allow all from this page temporarily which I rarely did.
I could also go down a list of like 10 sites listed and say temporarily allow for 3 of the 10 sites having to click on each of the 3 to temp allow for those 3. Next time I opened the browser to go to the same page they would all be denied again. This is exactly what I want to still do.

Then why don't you do that.
Click on trusted, see that the clock is dense, visible and not translucent, and you have a temp rule till you restart Firefox.

I merely told you that pointing at the default rule and going "there is no clock there" is expected behaviour.
If you click on trusted on anything you want to allow, the clock appears, because "temp" is a setting for trusted and custom, but NOT for default.

OK, I think I got it now.

Is this correct:
Click once on trusted, clock will show up solid. it is now temporarily trusted. Click on the clock and it will turn translucent/grey and now I have permanently trusted.
Where the old system had "default", "trusted", "temp allow" the new system has "default", "trusted/temp", "trusted/perm", and "custom".

[Pansa]

Is this correct:
Click once on trusted, clock will show up solid. it is now temporarily trusted. Click on the clock and it will turn translucent/grey and now I have permanently trusted.
Where the old system had "default", "trusted", "temp allow" the new system has "default", "trusted/temp", "trusted/perm", and "custom".

Mostly (but yes, for the part that you want, that's it).

The old had default/untrusted, trusted temp, and trusted perm.

The new has:
default, untrusted, trusted perm, trusted temp, custom perm, and custom temp.

Thus it allows you to make a distinction (if you want, you don't HAVE to) both between what is default and what you REALLY don't trust. And allowing certain things for each source individually (custom) or trust them "fully" (and you can still restrict what you think trusted really means)

[Teao]

Is this correct:
Click once on trusted, clock will show up solid. it is now temporarily trusted. Click on the clock and it will turn translucent/grey and now I have permanently trusted.
Where the old system had "default", "trusted", "temp allow" the new system has "default", "trusted/temp", "trusted/perm", and "custom".

Mostly (but yes, for the part that you want, that's it).

The old had default/untrusted, trusted temp, and trusted perm.

The new has:
default, untrusted, trusted perm, trusted temp, custom perm, and custom temp.

Thus it allows you to make a distinction (if you want, you don't HAVE to) both between what is default and what you REALLY don't trust. And allowing certain things for each source individually (custom) or trust them "fully" (and you can still restrict what you think trusted really means)

Ok well now that I know what to do I'll be fine But wow the interface is completely non-intuitive. When I click "trusted" I expect that to be "perm" not "temp". I wanted to hit something that said "temp" and I won't see "temp" icon (clock) until after I hit "trusted" which I didn't hit cause I didn't want to perm trust. Even after hitting it, it is hard to realize it is now "temp".

[Crapalapadingdong]

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)

[Pansa]

Ok well now that I know what to do I'll be fine But wow the interface is completely non-intuitive. When I click "trusted" I expect that to be "perm" not "temp". I wanted to hit something that said "temp" and I won't see "temp" icon (clock) until after I hit "trusted" which I didn't hit cause I didn't want to perm trust. Even after hitting it, it is hard to realize it is now "temp".

You'd think that, and that was the case, till everybody complained about "how to set a temp rule" and that the clock wasn't there.
So in (I believe 1.3c1 ) the default was set to temp.

I honestly think it isn't a matter of intuition. It is a matter of clicking on things and reading the mouse-over text.
I don't think that "click on trusted and then whether temp or not" is so much more unintuitive than demanding a "where is the temp allow button, clicking on allow first is unintuitive".

Many users take "intuition" to mean "not having to do anything".

[Pansa]

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!

[KieranWalker]

Not entirely sure where to post this given the forum is kind of exploding. This seems to be the most active thread.

NoScript is breaking several major sites no matter which blocking options I allow. For example: YouTube videos and thumbnails will not load at all, Google image search will not load at all, and Yahoo! Mail will mostly not load (I get maybe the top five e-mails in my inbox and nothing else). This happens no matter what--I can set both Trusted and Default to allow everything and those sites will still not work. The only thing that fixes it is turning on Allow Scripts Globally.

Blocking things besides scripts also doesn't seem to be working for Trusted sites (e.g. if I want YouTube videos to require me to click on them before they start playing).

I'm seeing that too. For the VMWare site after I log in, NoScript is showing that it's blocking 12 items but I hit the button and it shows me two and they are both trusted...
This new interface is a sh*tshow.

I'm a bit late, but I just wanted to say it's working normally now (aside from the window resizing bug a few people have mentioned). I'm not sure if it was nuking all my open tabs (all three of them) or the update to 10.1.3, but things do appear to be functioning as expected.

[William Ockham]

The new NoScript interface is not an improvement.
Occam’s Razor is often translated as, “Multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity.”
The earlier NoScript featured a simple, usable, one-column, one-click interface. The system was efficient and effective. Thus, it satisfied Occam’s rule.
By contrast, the new NoScript presents a complex interface with multiple columns, multiple icons and drop-down menus. Some of the elements appear to overlap. From a design standpoint, the new system is a mess. Conceptually, the new interface violates Occam’s Razor: It unnecessarily introduces multiple elements for no practical reason. Consequently, the system’s usability decreases.
For the time being, I have downgraded to the earlier version of Firefox and earlier version of NoScript.
I understand that this is freeware; but perhaps for their own satisfaction, the developers might want to reconsider and revise their work.

[Pansa]

The new NoScript interface is not an improvement.
Occam’s Razor is often translated as, “Multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity.”
The earlier NoScript featured a simple, usable, one-column, one-click interface. The system was efficient and effective. Thus, it satisfied Occam’s rule.
By contrast, the new NoScript presents a complex interface with multiple columns, multiple icons and drop-down menus. Some of the elements appear to overlap. From a design standpoint, the new system is a mess. Conceptually, the new interface violates Occam’s Razor: It unnecessarily introduces multiple elements for no practical reason. Consequently, the system’s usability decreases.
For the time being, I have downgraded to the earlier version of Firefox and earlier version of NoScript.
I understand that this is freeware; but perhaps for their own satisfaction, the developers might want to reconsider and revise their work.

I would just like to argue that most software then by design transgresses against that rule.

The counter-running argument btw is "many roads lead to Rome".
Redundancy is NOT a sin.

Not to mention that Occam's razor applies to reasoning and not utility.
Occam's razor is not something you quote to pose the question "why do you own two hammers if you only need one?".

[barbaz]

The new NoScript interface is not an improvement.
Occam’s Razor is often translated as, “Multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity.”
The earlier NoScript featured a simple, usable, one-column, one-click interface. The system was efficient and effective. Thus, it satisfied Occam’s rule.
By contrast, the new NoScript presents a complex interface with multiple columns, multiple icons and drop-down menus. Some of the elements appear to overlap. From a design standpoint, the new system is a mess. Conceptually, the new interface violates Occam’s Razor: It unnecessarily introduces multiple elements for no practical reason. Consequently, the system’s usability decreases.
For the time being, I have downgraded to the earlier version of Firefox and earlier version of NoScript.
I understand that this is freeware; but perhaps for their own satisfaction, the developers might want to reconsider and revise their work.

Brilliant demonstration of why Occam's Razor doesn't apply outside of science.

First off, Occam's Razor is better stated as, 'When there are multiple possible explanations, the simplest one is most likely to be true.' Which basically says, simpler = better. Your statement of Occam's Razor in this context could be seen as a subset of this one, so I'll let that point slide.

Now, you appear to be defining simplicity based on fewest columns and icons. Do fewer columns and icons necessarily make a UI simpler? Well, your opinion says so. But it's only your opinion. There are many other ways simplicity could be defined. For example, one could define simplicity to be based on the number of entries per site. In the new UI, you have one entry per site, which you just set the way you want. Nice and simple, definitely satisfies Occam's Razor. In the old UI, you have "Allow", "Temporarily allow", "Mark as Untrusted", and various "Blocked Objects", all separate. That makes more than 4 entries per site. So by this standard, the old UI severely violates Occam's Razor, and is therefore less usable!

See the problem?

UI design is not pure science, so principles designed for scientific reasoning break down.