Add-ons • Re: Working on a Greasemonkey fork for Pale Moon

I also considered the drop-down menu option, but I think it adds an unnecessary step. In my opinion, it’s better to just remove the "get user script" button (and the corresponding items in the Greasemonkey button’s drop-down menu) and include a list of sites where scripts can be found in the readme.

It won't really be an unnecessary step, it would actually be a lot more convenient for people to just browse through the about:addons page to click at the drop-down menu to access any of the 3 websites to install any script they want (Gist/GitHub, Greasyfork, and OpenUserJS). If someone just want to jump straight ahead into creating their own userscript, they could just do it through the extension toolbar's drop-down menu and click "New User Script..." right away, just like how it is designed on Violentmonkey and Tampermonkey.

If we start listing every possible script source site in the UI, where will we stop?

The "every possible script source site" are only 2, right now. (GitHub doesn't really count - it just hosts many projects, including userscripts) being the most popular one is Greasyfork. I don't see anyone creating an entire website to host userscript database that would rival Greasyfork anytime soon.

But the 2 panels don't look that bad.

They both do not sit well with me, to be honest. I don't know if it's because I'm not used to that UI or because my browser window is bigger than 1320px wide, but the majority of the userscript manager audience do not have to compromise, if their window is able to fit that many labels. However, I do agree that the current page looks to be a bit crowded and I am hoping that the changes that I've mentioned would free up some space. I'll still look for some more alternatives that I could introduce into the extension - I'm thinking of adding some preferences that would enable/disable some functions that the users may or may not need, maybe you could utilize that in decluttering the page UI. I could also make the page behave differently, depending on how few the pixels are (which in this case could be lower than 1320px) - I'll see what I can do and which one looks more pleasant in the eyes.

There's no need to make such sacrifices Just trust llm less. ...In xul, when attempting to set an element's size to 0/0px, the value resets to "auto". flex hacks rarely work correctly with -moz-box. Alternatively, you can simply avoid setting "flex=1" for the element - you have a hard-coded window size that cannot be changed, and manually calculating the width isn't that difficult. Also, you don’t need to use for #greasemonkey-script-preferences. You can use and set the window size via css (as is done for #greasemonkey in install.css)

Wow...It was that simple. I legit had to get the AI's help, since XUL development is my weakest point, turns out to be the AI's weak point as well. 😅 I do wanna thank you so much for helping me in the UI development of them - Would love to see further contributions from you as well.

I think it looks pretty good, and we can add other features to the "User Preferences" tab if desired.

It does look very good and functional. Will use that interface.

Alright, I'll try to gather my thoughts and my edits together into a coherent proposal in a couple of days ))

Absolutely, I already love the ones you've suggested. My GitHub repo is already easily reachable through the extension's Homepage, and I would love to hear the features that you are about to write to me (Bonus point if you'll be able to do pull requests to some of them to insure their implementation - the source code is much easier to read now that I've changed the architecture a bit). I'll be working on some other features that I originally wanted to add into the extension, in the meantime.