Loading…
Bring the `all` row back #727
3 participants
unless i'm mistaken, umatrix is not available in firefox? i can live with adding the rule manually, but the ui consistency was nice. i get that ui space is limited, would scrolling overflow not resolve this, as well as the glitchy UI in firefox?
Look what happens if I don't force the height of the popup to be that of the height of the basic pane:
That's for Chromium, on Firefox it's even worst, it becomes even more than glitchy, it becomes unusable:
So having a freely vertically-resized popup is not an option, the left-most pane (dynamic filtering) has to be forced to be the same height as the right-most pane to fix all these issues. So back to the previous vertical space being limited, and why the all row is really needed. I am still open to be convinced with good arguments.
I see what you mean... would having a max-height/max-width with overflow not correct that? as far as a convincing argument, I really have none other than max control as you put it elsewhere. I tend to block by defautl (as in noscript/RP allow none) and then work my way up in allowing a site. I know for most users this is way too much work, so leaving the option available as a rule is good enough.
I take it that the UI glitchiness is a beast unto itself, and would rather have the working UI than the added rule
block by defautl (as in noscript/RP allow none)
Alright. I have a bias that makes me more sympathetic to people who block all by default than allow all by default (the latter would need to work me more to convince me). I will add the all row back, I might just make it a bit less high than other rows.
Maybe something like this? Please ignore my lack of artistic skills with MS Paint, it's just to illustrate a point.
@alejandrolemus The all row is back, there is no need for anything more.
@alejandrolemus Actually, looking at your screenshot, why are the cells in the all row set to noop?
I like to play with options :D
For me that would be the same as no dynamic filtering. I put it like that when my wife asks me to use the browser for some quick tasks. Otherwise I need to be around to 'unbroke' each page.
That's why I would like some 'quick' switch, I know sharing the browser or session is not ideal, but it's practical in MY everyday life.
My other half doesn't care or know about internet privacy, but I still would like some level of uBlocking for her.
that would be the same as no dynamic filtering
But by default there is no dynamic filtering. There is no point applying noop to the all cells. If there is no allow or block for these cells, they are implicitly noop. The only purpose of noop is to cancel an allow or block inherited from a broader cell, but nothing is broader than all.
Your answer came when I was editing my previous. I see what you mean, but I do use block rules for 3rd party frames and scripts, and since there is no global switch, I play to see what happens.
Edit: in that screenshot I obviously forgot to revert those cells to default.
Usually is like this:
Then I would do the "all noop" for her. Once she is done, I revert to this.
Hope that is not too confusing
Then I would do the "all noop" for her
Never mind, not that important. I just wished it was completely understood, as the more people understands it completely, the more they can help others understand it completely -- and this relieve me of having to be the one only who can explain it. To set the all cells to noop is a symptom of not understanding it completely. There is no harm in doing so, it's just pointless.
Well, I guess is back to RTFM to me, then :(
back to RTFM
No. Just ask yourself a question: "What does applying noop to the 'all' cells do?" Tell me what you think it does.
It was my understanding that it would completely bypass the dynamic filtering and apply only the rules block whatever as per chosen lists (EasyList, etc).
For instance, if I noop the global 'all', none of the global block rules (3rd party scripts and frames in my case) would then apply anymore.
I was reading your much improved explanation on this subject, and I think I get it now: I can noop something inherited, not try to force a noop to propagate to narrower scopes. Is that correct?
I can
noopsomething inherited, not try to force anoopto propagate to narrower scopes
Exactly.
If you want to disable dynamic filtering when your wife uses the browser, best is just to un-check "I am an advanced user", this disable completely dynamic filtering, returning uBlock to a mere ABP-like blocker.
Exactly.
Finally! I'm just a lazy reader, not a complete moron :) Oh, and thanks for the time you took to educate me!
best is just to un-check "I am an advanced user"
Too many clicks... sighs. Since there is no point for a noop in the "global all" cell, can you make it a shortcut for this? Or at least a quick switch somewhere in the popup? I know it's me been lazy again, that you have too much work already, and that you don't want more clutter in the popup, but that would be my pet request for uBlock.
Given the pic of your settings, just noop-ing 3rd-party scripts/frames is fine also. The whole point was just that noop-ing the global all cell was not needed.
Will do it like that for now. But I know that when uBlock matures, you will improve the UI in your spare time, eventually :D
I can noop something inherited, not try to force a noop to propagate to narrower scopes
I said "Exactly" earlier, but the right answer is "That's right, rules (inlucing noop) from a broader scope cannot override rules from narrower scopes". So the noop of the all scope will propagate down to narrower scopes for where there are no rules set, but it will not override when narrower scopes have a rule set.
thanks for bringing the "all" row back, browsing so much faster with "all" in red 
Some feedback following this change:
and
I want the case to be made about why it is deemed so useful.
Blocking the
allcell in all likeliness completely breaks a web page, as even 1st-party resources are blocked. For someone wanting that kind of extreme control, uMatrix is better suited.