Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Mark temporary permitted destination appear yellow #670

Closed
sataevr opened this issue Jun 15, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

Mark temporary permitted destination appear yellow #670

sataevr opened this issue Jun 15, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

@sataevr
Copy link

sataevr commented Jun 15, 2015

Example

@ivan-kolmychek
Copy link

👍 for this issue, that would be really nice.

Also, they can be put to separate group "Temporary allowed destinations", I think.

@jdgalt
Copy link

jdgalt commented Jun 15, 2015

I vote for the second method. Or you could show the "temporarily allowed" site in italics, the way NoScript does.

@nodiscc nodiscc changed the title Mark temporary permitted destination Mark temporary permitted destination appear yellow Jun 16, 2015
@nodiscc
Copy link
Contributor

nodiscc commented Jun 16, 2015

There was another suggestion, which was to add a timer icon next to temp. rules, see #601 and #167

@myrdd
Copy link
Member

myrdd commented Jun 16, 2015

see #601

To have it here visually:

timer-icon


I think a yellow icon is a bad idea. Two reasons:

  • Temporary deny rules may exist. Should the blocking icon be yellow? I wouldn't like that.
  • The color „yellow“ is already used for the „disabled“ flag: disabled-flag. I'd prefer not to use „yellow“ anywhere else.

Personally I like the timer icon most.


When you have more ideas: Be aware of the three cases:

  1. Only permanent rules have applied.
  2. Only temporary rules have applied.
  3. Both permanent and temporary rules have applied.

In case of the „timer“, we also need an icon for the third case. Maybe a clock that is only partly visible?

@nodiscc
Copy link
Contributor

nodiscc commented Jun 17, 2015

Closing in favor of #167. Feel free to comment there if the proposed solution doesn't suit you.

@nodiscc nodiscc closed this as completed Jun 17, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants