Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
Site Settings (Android): I don't know when/if I can add a site exception |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionwhat do you expect? to be able to use and understand web permissions while browsing. what happens instead? it's not clear to me, as a user, when I'll be able to add my own rules in site settings. why is it unclear? 1) rules differ per type (i.e. I can add an exception for JavaScript but not for Location). 2) "+ ADD SITE EXCEPTION" sometimes only gets magically revealed, i.e. after I toggle something to it's non-standard default (i.e. without blocking JavaScript, I would never know that I could add a site exception to enable it because it's hidden). 3) I can't add a site exception to block JavaScript on a specific domain (and leave it enabled everywhere else) without: a) disabling JavaScript b) adding an exception c) editing the exception d) re-enabling JavaScript
,
Oct 4 2016
here's an example of when i disabled a category and expected "+ ADD SITE EXCEPTION" so i could add sites I trust (i.e. Google)
,
Oct 4 2016
here's the amount of steps to allow JS on only 1 domain
,
Oct 4 2016
This matches the initial mocks for Desktop as well, which have evolved since. The argument, at the time the Android Site Settings were implemented, was that it is especially important to keep the UI simple on mobile and besides, people don't go to Site Settings to Block individual sites. Most of the time, that is done through either infobars/omnibox controls. Therefore, only a whitelist approach was implemented. Whether that has changed now, given how it is implemented on Desktop is another story. I suspect UX views the Desktop mocks as v2 and Android implementation is still v1. But I don't think there's disagreement on the fact that more categories should support whitelists, although there's nobody tasked with that work.
,
Oct 4 2016
sorry, i meant "block on only 1 domain"
,
Oct 5 2016
,
Oct 6 2016
No. 1 (only JavaScript allows exceptions) is being amended here: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=442446 I'll consider this bug specifically about improving the UI on adding/removing exceptions rather than applying the behavior to all of them.
,
Oct 13 2016
All permissions having exceptions will be handled by the bug noted in Comment 7. Per the design bit, I'll match this to the desktop mocks once they are resolved.
,
Oct 17 2016
Per desktop mocks from bettes@: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1AAF6Z-HW81I-JCuGDU1aaj4c_XXAbDuMlYPN8s4cmfc/edit#slide=id.g183c03172b_4_1 We'll: 1) Remove collapse/expand sections 2) Replace the icons with + for adding exceptions 3) Keep allow/block up consistently with "No sites allowed" or "No sites blocked" as stand-in text when empty Something like this (confirming with bettes@ this is OK) https://folio.googleplex.com/chrome-ux/mocks/236-fizz/content-settings/101716_ClankExceptions#%2F01_UpdatedExceptions.png I'm not quite sure what to do in the case a user has something set to allow or block and underneath allow/block sections the text says "No sites allowed/blocked" Could be confusing. Discussing with bettes@ in the MD setting doc slides. I'll mark this as a dupe of the older one and add new UI for what that looks like on mobile to that bug so all the mobile exceptions changes are in one place. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by dbeam@chromium.org
, Oct 4 2016