Survey Time [CLOSED]: Show Script Source

in The Banana Bar
Subscribe to Survey Time [CLOSED]: Show Script Source 80 posts, 41 voices



qufighter Scriptwright
FirefoxWindows

There are potential problems with the way that it is only in that the view script source button may not provide a preview that represents what is actually installed. Installing script that is showing in the browser window would be most convenient but just about any other add-on could then collide with and transform the contents. What the button does need to change regardless of how it's solved since the show script source button can trigger any number of events to occur depending on your firefox version and configuration of how to handle javascript files, it is potentially dangerous and could even lead the user to attempt to execute the script, especially since JS files appear to be prompting for download now. Removing the button is convenient for users who don't know what source even is. The ability to review the actual file that is downloaded easily is prudent for developers and those concerned with safeguarding the community, however the safe way to view these files is to allow GM to install them and then view them with the configured editor so that they will not execute before review. It seems to be either that or a new staging area are required since right now scripts are enabled as soon as they are installed and if a tab is refreshed or created the script should not immediately execute until the user has had chance to review.

EDIT: it should be noted that most of my comments are based on an earlier version of GM. The show script source is less broken in the latest version, plus the new addons dialog definitely does NOT work as an OK|Apply|Cancel type suggestion I posted on dev. The need to review before executing is essential, it should be accounted for somehow whether this button or not, ideally a new script should not run without explicit user navigation. I think simplifying the button to simply say "view" is largely sufficient, although best yet (as mentioned below by GIJoe) would be to include the checkbox to enable or disable next to the install button, then the view script source can be removed.

EDIT2 RE Banning: I don't necessarily think it's fair, however forums are better place for discussion of a certain type anyway since there are a lot of personal issues that don't belong in everyones inbox. If something gets very heated and personal in what is suppose to be a development forum then I'm not sure that it helps the developers come up with simple solutions to the various security threats lying in wait. I never really experienced Google groups being moderated, however it's not really appropriate to email the whole list just to warn one person, and it's not really appropriate to use the dev list to express disdain for any members of the development group since like it or not we are relying on them and there is always a reason and a methodology behind what they are doing they don't necessarily have to explain everything on top of doing excellent work, not every matter is always open to debate since time and expertise are finite resource, being a pro does not guarantee automatic acceptance in or of every group, however the professional can attempt to make the most of just about any situation, and certain attitudes rarely help anyone it is still possible to be surprised by what can be accomplished through the chaos of conflicts.

 
znerp Scriptwright
FirefoxWindows

Marti wrote:
I agree... I'm tired of it too

Then don't rise to it. Every time we have a similar situation; you post something on these forums that someone disagrees with (either in content or in its actual existance on these forums), and then your history is brought up seemingly to inform other users who are reading the topic. On every occasion that I recall you then pen a lengthy reply where you call into question the other user's character and make some attempt to bring the thread back on-topic. This is not necessary, and where there are further replies from those users you always seem to have to have the last word on the subject.

This is not an issue specific to Johan and Anthony, I have seen you do this every time you perceive anyone to be disagreeing with you or wronging you in some way. Now I don't want to enter into a debate with you here; you can take my opinion or leave it, but I feel that if you just leave these replies without trying to get a shot back at them then the whole topic would move on faster. Besides, anyone who has been reading these forums for some time probably has an idea of your character without having to read any of these exchanges.

 
Marti Scriptwright
FirefoxX11

znerp wrote:
Then don't rise to it.
I know I shouldn't let the "Wonder-Twins" spew garbage all over me but I will always defend my character especially when they try to paint me in a different light then what the rest of the civilized world does.

I chose the Banana Bar for a reason as it's always offtopic chit chat and I actually gave them a chance to prove just how ugly or not they really are... and they never fail to satisfy. They were invited dead last. In about 2008ish I replied "I learned my lesson" to them... but I didn't say what lesson. The lesson learned is that they are untrustworthy and most definitely negligent. Some of their actions are borderline criminal.

znerp wrote:
you always seem to have to have the last word on the subject.
Not true... do a search and you'll find that I'm not always the the last one... and there is a lot that I don't agree with but I "know how to pick and choose my battles" as the saying goes. This is a terrible assumption to make but I value your honesty. I can only assume that you won't and you'll say/think "you're proving my point". This is open-forum and I'm the initiator on this topic and I clearly defined that it is open-discussion. If people want to stray to general grievances centered around this they can. :) I'd much rather not have someone edit a post or flat out delete something of someone elses especially when it's ontopic and right on the nose. Anthony has clearly and deliberately forced his will upon everyone and deleted questions and possible workarounds on multiple occasions... That's not a good thing to have in the community. Johan isn't as bad but he does tend to obsess on the past. I'm not the only one that the Twins have done this to... I'm just the visible scape-goat.

If I really wanted to dissect all of the replies here and get the "last word" I could but I don't... the helpful replies are to educate upstream against their grievous and "premature" assumptions.

I'm going to bring up experience, apparently that's a taboo in some circles, but the younger generation needs to learn to respect their elders... and guess what I'm an elder. My elders completely concur with this as well and I oblige. I'm told "I'm a true visionary and anyone who has a problem with can go take a dive somewhere"... A famous quote that I can enjoy now "I'm older and I've got more insurance" ;)... not to mention one hell of a legal team. :) Kudos to them. :)

Bringing this back to a productive state, dispensing with doom and gloom from Anthony/Johan, and getting off the Znerp M.A. couch ;)... I think qufighter has a valid point buried in that big block of text:

Moving the installation completely into the Add-ons dialog will allow external editors to handle the requests while preventing any other Add-ons (Packaged User Scripts too) from interfering with view script source.

I will, however, not endorse GM if the script is enabled by default when it's all in the AO dialog and installed and executed without allowing user intervention and inspection at least once before forever blindly traveling into the unknown abyss... and I don't really agree with a timeout or Add-on manager close... sometimes I leave that open for days at a time. Forcing a user to close the dialog is not the best idea I've read. And a timeout runs into the problem of people complaining it's too long or it's too short. Anyone who has been reading on USO for a decent amount of time has seen this already.

 
nickster User
FirefoxWindows

glad you caught this
i like to learn how things work
kep it

 
GIJoe Scriptwright
SeamonkeyMacintosh

+1, and a option to choose if the script start enabled or disabled.

 
Avindra V.G. Scriptwright
FirefoxWindows

Since one of the issues being discussed here is bias, I'm going to point out here that you get less bias on userscripts.org because it is unmoderated and extremely accessible. An overwhelming number of both users and developers love the userscripts.org forums, and you'll get a clearer idea of what your user base wants here, rather than at the google threads, where there is a much smaller group which voice their opinions here anyway.

arantius wrote:
If you'd like to voice your opinion in regards to the future development of the Greasemonkey extension, please do it in the Greasemonkey Developer's Mailing List.

So the bottom line I'm making here is if you're not going to use USO primarily, at least don't tell your users to switch over to your google discussions. If you're not going to use this primarily, at least take the responsibility of considering the voices here.

 
Johan Sundström Scriptwright
ChromeMacintosh

I should actually revise one of my statements about Greasemonkey-dev, and unlike some, I won't silently edit my post to change neither flavour, nuance nor content.

While Marti is the only person ever to have been banned from Greasemonkey-dev, when the list was hit hard by spam bots that Google Groups' automatic filtering failed to keep at bay, passionate list members stepped up to lend the community a hand zapping them on detection. Greasmonkey-dev is about evolving Greasemonkey, not about posting pictures or monetizing eyeballs of its list members.

 
$pooky Scriptwright
ChromeWindows

+1

 
w35l3y Scriptwright
FirefoxWindows

+1
I use that button!

 
sizzlemctwizzle Scriptwright
FirefoxMacintosh

GIJoe wrote:
+1, and a option to choose if the script start enabled or disabled.
I like this. It could be a checkbox in the install dialog and be checked by default.

 
serenityj User
FirefoxX11

This is directed to the maintainers of greasemonkey. I don't like the implications that are being made when certain persons make negative comments about userscripts.org, i.e. "and unlike some, I won't silently edit my post to change neither flavour, nuance nor content". Some of it also confusing and doesn't make any sense. For example "posting pictures or monentizing eyeballs of its list members". What exactly does that mean? Censoring valid opinions is not condusive to making improvements to the software or being supportive of the community. Character assasinations are not appropriate for adults. Criticism of past events is not acceptable. Our goal needs to be better communication between individuals not animosity.

Most members are capable of expressing what they mean in a reply even if they have to go back and elaborate on the same post. The greasemonkey-dev list is not my venue of choice for beneficial communications. More time needs to be allocated for feedback not less. Contributors need the proper recognition and acknowledgment for their proficiency instead of isolating perceived character flaws. When you point a finger at someone just remember you have three pointed back at yourself.

Certain assurances should be made to allow for examination of what is being installed in the easiest and the most familiar way, i.e. keep the button. Hiding the ability to effectively determine if a script is suitable to be run should not be sanctioned by the maintainers. The current solution may not be the best but it is the most recognized. Goodbye for now.

 
Marti Scriptwright
FirefoxX11

↑ AMEN! :)

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
It could be a checkbox in the install dialog and be checked by default.
If Anthony truly decides to eliminate the entire installation dialog where would you put it instead? The idea of the checkbox on the Installation interface is growing on me but perhaps considering a fallback in the event it is the AO dialog.

 
sizzlemctwizzle Scriptwright
FirefoxMacintosh

Marti wrote:
If Anthony truly decides to eliminate the entire installation dialog where would you put it instead?
It would have to be put in the addons dialog. If you clicked on a .user.js link the addons dialog would be opened with the script selected and it would be disabled. You could easily enable/edit to review/uninstall it from there.

 
Marti Scriptwright
FirefoxX11

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
It would have to be put in the addons dialog. If you clicked on a .user.js link the addons dialog would be opened with the script selected and it would be disabled. You could easily enable/edit to review/uninstall it from there.
Sounds great if that is the avenue traveled... Would there be a possibility of a hidden preference or visible one in the preference panel for those users that are eager and unsafe to install and get going like from this comment?

 
znerp Scriptwright
FirefoxWindows

Johan Sundström wrote:
I should actually revise one of my statements about Greasemonkey-dev

Whilst you seem intent on dragging Marti's thread off-topic, you're clearly not succeeding. If you have something relevant to add then feel free, but if you're going to insist on posting about the Greasemonkey-dev then please do so in a more relevant topic. I'm not sure whether you're insulting Marti or the entire userscripts.org community in your post, but I would say that your aggressive tone is really not all that welcome here.

Getting back on topic though, I do like what sizzle is proposing. I'd never thought of having a script disabled initially.

 
sizzlemctwizzle Scriptwright
FirefoxMacintosh

Marti wrote:
Would there be a possibility of a hidden preference or visible one in the preference panel for those users that are eager and unsafe to install and get going like from this comment?
Before you really install and enable a script you want the user to preform some type of confirmation(which is currently what the "Install" button on the install dialog is for). As I said in the comment you quoted, the script would need to be disabled if it was going to be automatically installed when you navigated to a .user.js link. It isn't safe to enable it without some type of user confirmation so a preference wouldn't be needed, but perhaps I'm confused about what you're asking.
I'm only worried that a user wouldn't realize the script has to be enabled before it will work. Perhaps the enabled button should be renamed "Install" and the uninstall button could be renamed "Cancel". If you clicked "Cancel" or closed the addons dialog before hitting "Install", the script would be uninstalled. If enough people express interest in this idea, I'd be willing to do a mock-up.

 
Marti Scriptwright
FirefoxX11

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
I'm only worried that a user wouldn't realize the script has to be enabled before it will work.
This is what I mean by at least once... being prompted to auto-enable and/or having a preference viewable in the Preference dialog that would satisfy those who do or don't. It's one checkbox/label and one Firefox boolean preference... and a simple conditional set. Renaming the button text and their associated actions is another concurrent thought that I had as well. :)

 
LenAnderson Scriptwright
SafariMacintosh

+1

 
ekbworldwide User
FirefoxWindows

If the delay is removed - I'm fine with a dialog box staying.

 
Marti Scriptwright
FirefoxX11

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
perhaps another way could be added to easily view those (@include/@exclude) if the user chooses.
Since the GM AO dialog is actually a Moz Extensions wrapper and the items are being placed into an "overlay" of sorts, couldn't those also just be appended along with the @description key contents?

 
sizzlemctwizzle Scriptwright
FirefoxMacintosh

Marti wrote:
couldn't those also just be appended along with the @description key contents?
Yes they could. We could just make that extra info collapsed by default and add a button to expand and show it.

Although it's kind of unrelated to the original topic of this discussion, for those interested in GM development, I've opened an issue for my previously suggested idea.

 
Marti Scriptwright
FirefoxX11

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
kind of unrelated to the original topic
A very loose interpretation of it as it is related but not directly stated in the text by the actual survey above the first horizontal rule line. However it is centered (and implied) around the issue of hiding the "complexity" of installing a user.js.

Anthony doesn't always initially elaborate his end goals as stated here by this

At this point, viewing the source of the script, and all resources and
requires, should be just an 'edit' click away.
and here
I suppose some of this might have been a bit premature.
and his near simultaneous completed branch before the issue was discussed by the dev list. Because he is the maintainer/assigned contributor he will not show up in the html5 Network Graph and all commits are currently taken from his repository thus making those two accounts of arantius and greasemonkey exactly the same. One is supposed to be unstable and the other stable.

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
I've opened an issue for my previously suggested idea.
Thank you for opening that issue as this addresses part of the survey concerns.

I'm not sure that Anthony will refrain from actually editing and/or deleting anyones comment there that offers a possible solution which is why this topic on USO exists. He has already proven himself that he supports this feature on GitHub by editing issue content as well as deleting of relevant replies.

As we all know here this particular feature on GitHub of editing someone elses post is not possible on USO... this specifically could be a discussion for a different topic.

 
GreyWyvern Scriptwright
OperaWindows

Three points:

- Why remove it? If you're not a technical person, you just won't click it. Maybe a good idea would be to create a special dev version of GM available that phones home logs of activity, like how many scripts are installed on average and how many times the View Source button is pressed.

- Arantius: I think it's presumptuous of you to think that discussion about Greasemonkey development can only happen in one place. It is the wise thing to gather feedback from as many sources as possible.

- Marti: Seriously, each of the seven "valid questions" you ask in the original post are completely rhetorical. It's obvious you are biased in this and knew what decision you wanted to see wrt the View Source button from the very beginning. You don't need to pretend to be impartial in order to start a discussion. Just be yourself.

 
Marti Scriptwright
FirefoxX11

Just wanted to take a moment and thank everyone for voicing their opinions. A very good cross-section imo and thanks for participating. Survey is officially closed... however I'm sure some of you may want to discuss moving forward instead of moving backwards... but perhaps a different topic? :)

 
Yansky Scriptwright
FirefoxWindows


Survey is officially closed.

Did I win the car?