barbaz wrote:
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?
