You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The new NoScript interface has a lot more in common with uMatrix than the old one did. However, on the whole, I'd have to say that the uMatrix implementation is more mature. It neatly handles site-specific permissions, temporary vs permanent permissions, base domains vs full domains with readily visible inheritance, fully disabling per-domain (for debugging, or when there's an important transaction that mustn't be disrupted, etc), and a variety of content types.
Would it be useful to copy the interface, or at least the design principles? I think that some convergent evolution may be in order.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In uMatrix it is easy to see what is blocked for each site, which is a nice advantage. I am quite comfortable with NoScript's interface, but this is something I miss sometimes.
It would be nice to see what is blocked at least as tooltip when the cursor moves over the name of the site, for example. The information should be available, since one can see what is being blocked by clicking the CUSTOM preset to see the unchecked entries with a red background.
The new NoScript interface has a lot more in common with uMatrix than the old one did. However, on the whole, I'd have to say that the uMatrix implementation is more mature. It neatly handles site-specific permissions, temporary vs permanent permissions, base domains vs full domains with readily visible inheritance, fully disabling per-domain (for debugging, or when there's an important transaction that mustn't be disrupted, etc), and a variety of content types.
Would it be useful to copy the interface, or at least the design principles? I think that some convergent evolution may be in order.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: