Noscript is not saving preferences

[Sandbo]

After upgrading to the so called Firefox Quantum or 57, and Noscript has got a new interfaces,
I found that many sites cannot have the preference saved, essentially resetting itself everytime I close firefox.

For example, Mangastream is blocked every time firefox is started, and I have to allow it on Noscript and this becomes annoying overtime.
Is there a bug? Or something I have to set?

[Pansa]

After upgrading to the so called Firefox Quantum or 57, and Noscript has got a new interfaces,
I found that many sites cannot have the preference saved, essentially resetting itself everytime I close firefox.

For example, Mangastream is blocked every time firefox is started, and I have to allow it on Noscript and this becomes annoying overtime.
Is there a bug? Or something I have to set?

Have you clicked on the clock that says "temporary allow" when you mouseover?

https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =7&t=23974

[Sandbo]

After upgrading to the so called Firefox Quantum or 57, and Noscript has got a new interfaces,
I found that many sites cannot have the preference saved, essentially resetting itself everytime I close firefox.

For example, Mangastream is blocked every time firefox is started, and I have to allow it on Noscript and this becomes annoying overtime.
Is there a bug? Or something I have to set?

Have you clicked on the clock that says "temporary allow" when you mouseover?

https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =7&t=23974

You are totally correct!
It seems that is ON by default, which explains why all my settings were always gone.
That should imho by default OFF, or just make it a separated option; it is so tiny and hard to notice it was a button.

[Giorgio Maone]

Since the clock-shaped icon switch (still on the CUSTOM button) seems to be a major source of confusion, 10.1.6.2rc1 now provides a dedicated "Temp. TRUSTED" (Temporary allow) preset button

[Pansa]

That should imho by default OFF, or just make it a separated option; it is so tiny and hard to notice it was a button.

It was that way in the first releases of the new NS, which then caused posts that went
"all my rules are permanent, where are the temp rules"
and
"why do I have to click twice for temp rules, I make temp rules far more often than permanent ones".

There is really no way to make an interface that works if people don't try..... :/

Since the clock-shaped icon switch (still on the CUSTOM button) seems to be a major source of confusion, 10.1.6.2rc1 now provides a dedicated "Temp. TRUSTED" (Temporary allow) preset button

I wish you wouldn't do that. (Same with the other announced change about moving the preset configs "out of reach")
I understand that the UI causes a lot of feedback here and on your blog, but people who are getting the interface just fine don't write posts about that, and I find both those things internally very consistent and "streamlined", and don't think either change will actually make it better or more intuitive to use.
Could you maybe reconsider not making each UI element behave different from the others in that way?
(like having trusted, temp trusted, <-> custom with a toggle, and managing custom settings in line but the others somewhere else?
I think your idea was spot on in the first place, and don't think you can make it actually better just by trying to lose consistency because people don't read mouse-overs :/

[barbaz]

I wish you wouldn't do that. (Same with the other announced change about moving the preset configs "out of reach")
I understand that the UI causes a lot of feedback here and on your blog, but people who are getting the interface just fine don't write posts about that, and I find both those things internally very consistent and "streamlined", and don't think either change will actually make it better or more intuitive to use.
Could you maybe reconsider not making each UI element behave different from the others in that way?
(like having trusted, temp trusted, <-> custom with a toggle, and managing custom settings in line but the others somewhere else?
I think your idea was spot on in the first place, and don't think you can make it actually better just by trying to lose consistency because people don't read mouse-overs :/

Do you realise how condescending and arrogant this quote sounds?

It can be summarised as: 'I find the previous NoScript 10 UI better. The people who dislike it just didn't try hard enough to get it, and they are more vocal than the people who are fine with it. Therefore, I wish you wouldn't address the reported UI design problems'

WTH?

NoScript is supposed to be accessible to intermediate users. The previous NoScript 10 UI, err, was not. And many folks said so, and explained why.

Now Giorgio is trying to fix the problems, and you just blame the messengers, as though it is their own fault they were confused?

Not cool.

As for the UI 'causing a lot of feedback' while people who 'get the interface just fine' don't write posts: People typically don't go to support forums when everything works great for them. People go to support forums when things aren't OK. So people who are 'getting the interface just fine' won't write posts, unless they're trying to help someone else. This doesn't invalidate the posts by the people who are dissatisfied.

Pansa, we really appreciate your useful contributions here, now please bring the comments back to a reasonable level. Thanks.

[barbaz]

Since the clock-shaped icon switch (still on the CUSTOM button) seems to be a major source of confusion, 10.1.6.2rc1 now provides a dedicated "Temp. TRUSTED" (Temporary allow) preset button

Thanks Giorgio for making this change. Much better IMO

But with Temp. Trusted and Trusted as separate buttons, it is now confusing to be able to customise the presets inline in NoScript Options. It looks like you can set different permissions for Temp Trusted sites vs Trusted sites. However, some testing shows that is not the case.

So can you please move customisation of Default/Trusted/Untrusted out to a separate section of NoScript Options?

[Pansa]

It can be summarised as: 'I find the old UI better. The people who dislike it just didn't try hard enough to get it, and they are more vocal than the people who are fine with it. Therefore, I wish you wouldn't address the reported UI design problems'

WTH?

NoScript is supposed to be accessible to intermediate users. The old UI, err, was not. And many folks said so, and explained why.

You know as well as I do what quality a lot of that feedback has.

And you can call me condescending, but that doesn't make it less true.
If a lot of feedback boils down to "Did not look, did not read, and did not try", please explain to me how to describe that honestly without sounding like a prick.
And especially with the temp situation you can't win. It WAS the other way around at the start, and it just spawned the inverse complaints. (And you know this, you answered a lot of the questions)

I mean questions like "does the change take effect if I close the options menu?". How do you diplomatically write "in the time you wrote this question, you could have already checked it yourself"?.

So how do you judge an UI when you basically only get the negative feedback? My point was "internal consistency", if behaviour is mirrored and symmetric unless explicitly using words that make it opposite, that is good.
(And "old UI" is getting confusing in this context. Just making sure we aren't talking about NS classic now).

I tried to express my view on some of the more "demanding" views on how NS10 should change further in the "ui" thread. I just don't agree that breaking up a symmetric UI just because someone would prefer it that way is always reasonable.
And you perfectly pointed out the issue with having temp trusted and perm trusted as separate buttons, namely that they create ONE rule, which is why temp was a toggle.
It should also follow that there should be the SAME two buttons for custom btw.
Because you can bet that the next wave will be "is custom always perm? there is no temp custom button".
And then you suddenly have 6 buttons in a row (default, untrusted, trusted perm, trusted temp, custom perm , custom temp), with 4 of them creating only 2 rules overwriting each other (why no temp untrusted, btw?)

And I think "intermediary users" can find a mouseover and an icon. That is not arrogant to presume and insist on, especially if it prevents an UI from having every button behave differently, just because it fits some peoples innate expectation.
So yes, I "like" the core idea of what the NS10 interface set out to do, and I think breaking that idea in half and shredding the internal consistency is not a good thing, especially if the situation is one where the feedback isn't a reasonable demographic cut. In which case you can't go by sheer occurance of feedback, but have to assign some sort of "merit" to it. And you know that "layer 8" or "pebkac" problems exist, and that you can't make a foolproof UI that will suit everyone, regardless of whether they are open to look for what the UI is trying to tell or not.

And as a sidenote the complains have drastically gone down, because the people who are experiencing them get fewer and fewer as the addon is reaching more and more of the audience.
And some problems are just to be expected if an UI changes from "mainly text based" to "using quite a number of icons and mouse-overs".

And yes, I know I phrase some answers a bit "direct", but that is mostly to make obvious things obvious, rather than to complicate matters by sugarcoating..
And honestly, why not see it as supportive. Because I support the idea Gorgio had when he cooked up the new interface, It's not like it didn't take some looking at to get the idea the first day, but it was a very good idea too do it that way, so why see supporting NOT breaking that up as negative?

[barbaz]

And you can call me condescending, but that doesn't make it less true.
If a lot of feedback boils down to "Did not look, did not read, and did not try", please explain to me how to describe that honestly without sounding like a prick.

Best we just skip describing the feedback in this context. Stick to the merits of the previous NoScript 10 UI vs current, and no one will have a problem with you.

We forum staff have years of experience weeding out garbage feedback. We know how to spot crap and discard it.

I mean questions like "does the change take effect if I close the options menu?". How do you diplomatically write "in the time you wrote this question, you could have already checked it yourself"?.

If it's harmless enough to 'just try it', you could write something like 'Why not just try it and find out? ' with the smiley face, and then provide some additional information so that you don't look like 'wise guy'.

(And "old UI" is getting confusing in this context. Just making sure we aren't talking about NS classic now).

You're right. Changed to "previous NoScript 10 UI", thanks.

you can bet that the next wave will be "is custom always perm? there is no temp custom button".

Maybe, but I think that wave likely won't be very big. If someone is going to the trouble of making Custom permissions for a specific site, I think they'll expect it to be permanent. And that's how it is by default.

People put some thought into Custom permissions, they generally won't want that blown away when quitting the browser.

And I think "intermediary users" can find a mouseover and an icon. That is not arrogant to presume and insist on, especially if it prevents an UI from having every button behave differently, just because it fits some peoples innate expectation.

Sure, they can find it, but it's not easy. Mouseover is surprisingly hard to find if you don't expect it to be there. And that clock icon is not very noticeable on my screen.

I "like" the core idea of what the NS10 interface set out to do, and I think breaking that idea in half and shredding the internal consistency is not a good thing,

What would you think of going back to the clock idea, but setting the label to "Trusted (Temp)" when the clock is active?

And honestly, why not see it as supportive. Because I support the idea Gorgio had when he cooked up the new interface, It's not like it didn't take some looking at to get the idea the first day, but it was a very good idea too do it that way, so why see supporting NOT breaking that up as negative?

Your opinion on the UI is perfectly reasonable, and I don't view it as 'negative'.

Now, if someone is pooh-poohing users who give reasonable-sounding feedback solely because some with similar opinion spouted dross, yes I do have a problem with that. So, again, let's stick to discussing merits of the previous NoScript 10 UI vs current.