Mouse Hover / Mouse Active Script

[TwoHat]

Please get rid of the script that hides and shows the page content based on the mouse active, or mouse hover event. It's very annoying. Everyone is annoyed by it. It's one of those things that seems like a good idea until you apply it and see it in action.

[AliceInWonderland]

Well I am not annoyed by it, so it is really not Everyone

However I get your jist, so perhaps it should be made a mandatory feature.?

[TwoHat]

Well I am not annoyed by it, so it is really not Everyone

However I get your jist, so perhaps it should be made a mandatory feature.?

What I meant, it that it's not common to use the onload, onactive, or mouseover event to hide and display the entire page content. Of course it's not going to annoy everyone. I think it's beyond argument that it's generally annoying though. The developer, the staff, DPR already know it's annoying and they are probably weighing in on removing it already. That's the reason that web developers don't use the onload, onactive, or mouseover event that way. It's not because no one has thought to do it like that.

[PrincesSara]

If the FBI took down other tor sites bc of peoples javascript isn't it stupid to have any javascript on the new site at all?

[Artist]

If the FBI took down other tor sites bc of peoples javascript isn't it stupid to have any javascript on the new site at all?

Regardless if the marketplace actually utilizes javascript or not for this (I haven't checked myself), using javascript on a hidden service isn't inherently a security risk. What's risky is users getting ACCUSTOMED  to javascript on a hidden service and consequently failing to exercise due diligence by confirming that the scripts that are running are not malicious.

Artist

[Jones909]

I have javascript disabled just like most people that use the Tor browser and it works on mine so it can't be a javascript.

[BladeRunner]

I do believe this new feature is OK too some users, but i am not one of them. This feature is very annoying, to me anyway.. It would be nice if this feature could change into turn on/off option, so user could choose if he/she want to have this feature enabled or not ...
Anyway, this is my humble opinion about that (annoying) feature .

[broken string]

It is not JS. That is a CSS rule. Just a disclaimer -- there is no javascript used in the site's source code.

[PrincesSara]

Can fancy CSS circumvent proxy settings though?

[broken string]

Of course not. CSS only tells the page how to make certain things look based on certain properties. I can say I want a link to look this way when someone hovers over it, but I cannot tell the page to do anything except change the way an element looks. This only affects the appearance of the page. You are completely safe. :-)

[Artist]

Can fancy CSS circumvent proxy settings though?

If I undetstand you correctly.. CSS should have absolutely nothing to do with any proxy configuration or TOR. CSS documents just define the style elements of a website. There is some pretty cool hacky stuff you can do with CSS however it is usually done in conjunction with javascript.

Artist

[Navudenas]

It's not really that difficult to move the mouse over the window. I find it very useful, wouldn't want someone walking into my room while I'm multitasking with Silk Road up and they see drugs on the screen.

[TwoHat]

It's not really that difficult to move the mouse over the window. I find it very useful, wouldn't want someone walking into my room while I'm multitasking with Silk Road up and they see drugs on the screen.

It's not really that difficult to click the minimize button, or to close and lock the door, or to browse SR somewhere else, or to be honest with the people you live around and with, etc. I could elaborate more but I think you get the point. There's a reason that not a single website on the entire internet utilizes these CSS properties this way. The mouseover shit is annoying. It's not going to last.

[WickedWords]

It's not really that difficult to move the mouse over the window. I find it very useful, wouldn't want someone walking into my room while I'm masturbating with Silk Road up and they see drugs on the screen.

Heh heh. Sorry.

[fuckthishoe]

This feature should have the option to be disabled but by default should be on for the new SR users.

[EuHighz]

i believe dpr told it will be optional. also you can set the timer how long after the blank screen appears. search for it to see im right:)

[envious]

I feel it is a good idea. You walk away from your PC and SR is still on the screen? That's no good. This is 10x better than incognito mode. I was a bit confused by it at first but now that I realized what it is I approve.

[Sarge]

I havent read over this whole thread yet as im just popping in.

I just want to assure everyone there is no JavaScript on SR main site. Everything is done via CSS

For those interested, investigate CSS3 transitions.

CSS is completely safe.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

The screen blanking feature is a CSS3 transition, no javascript of any kind of employed into the site code and therefore there is no risk to users from this. We will be expanding our options on its use yes and we will allow this to be either disabled or change the time set for it and right now we are simply gauging how the community feels about the feature - but it is likely we will keep it with extended options so those who wish to use it may.

[DoctorClu]

The screen blanking feature is a CSS3 transition, no javascript of any kind of employed into the site code and therefore there is no risk to users from this. We will be expanding our options on its use yes and we will allow this to be either disabled or change the time set for it and right now we are simply gauging how the community feels about the feature - but it is likely we will keep it with extended options so those who wish to use it may.

I like it. Like a sort of screen saver for the road. If people have the option later to disable it, then that is a win-win.

[Baggie]

If the FBI took down other tor sites bc of peoples javascript isn't it stupid to have any javascript on the new site at all?

Regardless if the marketplace actually utilizes javascript or not for this (I haven't checked myself), using javascript on a hidden service isn't inherently a security risk. What's risky is users getting ACCUSTOMED  to javascript on a hidden service and consequently failing to exercise due diligence by confirming that the scripts that are running are not malicious.

Artist

Well said, Artist.

~Baggie

[TwoHat]

It' still there and it's still annoying. Here's another thread where people are expressing that they do not like it:  http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=2609.msg36714#msg36714.

[WickedWords]

TwoHat, you've probably spent longer complaining about it than you've spent nudging your mouse every time it happens.

[Jones909]

If it is made to be optional there should be no objection from those who don't like it, right?

[TwoHat]

This feature should have the option to be disabled but by default should be on for the new SR users.

It should be off by default. Like with any user interface, anything that confuses people is inappropriate. I've read a few posts where people thought that there were bugs with the site and didn't know if it was working properly or not. See the titles of posts like "flashing screens", "sr not loading properly", "can't browse pages", etc. Those are all related to this. As far as user interface design goes, that's the worst possible thing that can happen, that people can not figure out how to navigate the site.

If it is made to be optional there should be no objection from those who don't like it, right?

Of course if it was an option that you set in your profile, no one would complain about it. Then, if I was going to post about it, the title of my post would have been something like "Proper User Interface Design". I don't want to post about this at all. I don't feel like I should have to. This is basically free consulting. Like I said in a previous post, there's a reason that web developers universally do not use these properties this way.

[SkeleTor]

I'm not sure CSS itself should be allowed to do this but as long as it is, it's a cool feature.

[WickedWords]

This is basically free consulting. Like I said in a previous post, there's a reason that web developers universally do not use these properties this way.

There's probably a reason they don't generally build sites for .onion addresses, too

[TwoHat]

This is basically free consulting. Like I said in a previous post, there's a reason that web developers universally do not use these properties this way.

There's probably a reason they don't generally build sites for .onion addresses, too

I'm not sure what your point is. Web developers don't generally build scripts for .onion sites because there are not nearly as many .onion sites in existence as there are clearnet sites. Lack of experience building .onion sites is not the issue. It's the same process as building clearnet sites. It's not justified if the developers lack experience anyway. That's even worse. The issue is with user interface design. The same principles apply to user interface design regardless of language or platform.

Also, whoever gave me negative karma, you must not understand what the karma system is for or how it works. I have not posted anything that deserves negative karma. You don't just give someone negative karma because you disagree with their post. That's not what the karma system is for. Use your words. We can't take karma seriously if this is how it is used the majority of the time. Perhaps a staff member could post a sticky explaining what karma is and how to use it since it's apparently not obvious to everyone.