3 ms·
I think what was meant is that the NoScript UX had a huge overhaul and it is difficult to use. I personally find the new NoScript interface difficult to use too
by octosphere 8y ago
I think what was meant is that the NoScript UX had a huge overhaul and it is difficult to use. I personally find the new NoScript interface difficult to use too.
> Noscript user experience is also broken, discouraging its use.
- superkuh 8y agoWell, the UX had a huge overhaul because Firefox decided that prioritizing grandma's safe experience on Facebook was more important than features. So they removed them. The great extension holocaust. NoScript was big enough to get special attention from Moz but even it is severely gimped now.
- zzzcpan 8y agoYeah, it's very slow, it doesn't ask for defaults and rather unfriendly towards casual use of tbb, where you don't necessarily remember the user interface and have to rediscover everything each time, only to come across cryptic icons.
- pitaj 8y agoNoscript was broken on the last version for me. It didn't actually block scripts, so I had to disable them in the browser settings instead, which of course meant I couldn't whitelist.