Join GitHub today
Refine the monkey menu script list #2585
Right now the monkey menu always lists every installed script every time.
If we keep this behavior, it should be split into "active on this page" and "the rest" sections, to make the first more relevant group more discoverable.
I've been toying with getting rid of the full-tab "manage" dialog in favor of doing all script management in the monkey menu (expanding the per-script display and options), but have not made a firm decision about that. If that decision is positive, do as above. If we keep the manage dialog, then perhaps we go back to the pre-4.0 style of only listing the active on this tab scripts.
Another thing to consider are the people who don't like having extra buttons in the toolbar area.
Aside from that, after mulling it over, I think doing script management through the menu could work out. There are a couple things that I think should have some consideration.
You can customize this like button like any other part of the UI, putting it into the overflow or hamburger menu. Browser Extensions get almost no UI besides the "browser action" which is a toolbar button.
This doesn't feel right to me. This would contain things only vaguely connected to the page. Plus you can't customize page actions out of your toolbar ;-) For some/many users this page action would ~always be visible. On mobile, page actions have to fit into a very small space. And what happens if two different extensions try to register a page action for the same page?
I disagree quite strongly. Namespace is an invisible property that only script authors understand; explaining to a normal user why a script is in a group would be unnecessarily difficult. This is something that you're generally not in control of as a user, scripts would appear to be in a random order more than anything else.
I think I prefer the legacy style of "active" scripts (ran on this tab) in one group, while "inactive" (did not run on this tab) ones are separate. Usually you're looking for something "running", no?