Guest wrote:I want to allow scripts on sites, not just web pages.
I don't understand this statement. Is it saying that you want to allow scripts, not just web pages? That doesn't make sense, because the two aren't in the same category. Is it saying that you want to allow sites, not just pages? That doesn't make sense either, because NoScript *is* based on sites (domains) rather than specific pages.
Many web site functions simply do not work (such as search) when NoScript is active.
Until you mark domains as trusted, yeah...because if the site chose to implement searching in a way that requires JavaScript, then enabling their search function requires giving them a significant degree of trust. You can do that, if you choose, by clicking 'Allow site.com' on the menu.
Adblock and other protections make the web less annoying
True, you can use that alongside NoScript
and safe
Nope, you don't get safety from ABP, the attacker can simply bypass it
without NoScript's inadequate design.
You'd have to make a more specific allegation before it would mean anything.
NoScript is a great idea
I agree
but has a flawed design
Which you haven't described
that makes it unusable for the serious WWW user.
Just the opposite. Serious users can handle it. Those who aren't serious, who give up at the first trivial hurdle of telling NS to trust a site - those are the ones who can't use it.
The developers clearly have let their paranoia get the better of them, without thinking about a decent user model.
The developer (singular) has made NoScript highly customizable, and the fact that it handles the horrible mess that is a modern website *at all* is a symptom of the quality of his work.