It's been my experience in the past the Pale Moon team has held the position that Pale Moon is ultimately intended for the more "technical user" - therefore there has reportedly been less concern expressed in regards to user-base retention/growth. Perhaps this former attitude has been modified to now consider user-base retention/growth as more critical than formally perceived and with that in mind whatever approach might make an impact in this direction should be taken into account. To be sure, my intention is in no way to be critical but rather my goal is to discuss options that would help Pale Moon be as successful as possible.
The reason I bring this up is because - we should all understand that users in general are, for the most part, only interested in websites working as expected as opposed to the technicalities involved to address an issue. On that point, arguably more bothersome technical approaches (i.e. repeatedly require the use of about:config to resolve website issues) can be arguably undesirable for a significant number of users to be perfectly honest.
On the other hand, scripts can be posted in a forum by qualified individuals and easily copied to a users clipboard and then pasted into a new script entry using GreaseMonky that is a "one-time fix" that allows websites to work as expected without any further intervention by the user. No further intervention has a nice ring to it - however the bugaboo that we have is making sure scripts address websites issues in an appropriate manner without causing extraneous problems. This can be presumably accomplished by making sure scripts are minimally "site specific".
An approach that uses a script that is both site specific and page specific would appear to be significantly more user friendly as well as absolutely safe opposed to what appears to be, at least in some cases, the preferred orthodoxy of requiring users to repeatedly take the 3 steps of enabling/disabling/enabling (from default to non-default and back to default) a preference setting using about:config (that in-and-of-itself can be risky if applied incorrectly) to accomplish the same thing that a script does as a one time procedure.
In conclusion: Taking into account the above, if the consensus is that the latter approach of using scripts would in general be preferred by users as a more convenient way to perform a "one-time fix". I would suggest that the forum (rules as such) consider adopting an approach where all scripts that are posted be restricted to only site-specific/page specific scripts. We can reasonably conclude that any poster who offers script solutions would know how to determine this. Using this new approach, regarding the use of site-specific/page-specific scripts would seem to me to be a rational suggestion that should not have any unintended consequences and therefore the only situation regarding the use of scripts that would warrant recrimination would be exclusively those that are not site-specific/page-specific.
Does this seem like a reasonable approach?
I'm assuming a lot of these sites will eventually be addressed through browser updates - but if this is going to take a matter of weeks/months as opposed to days in many cases then the approach that produces less damage to the user base would seem to be the better path to take. And of course scripts can very easily be either removed or minimally disabled if and when updates resolve the relevant issue.
Any opinions / ideas / suggestion on this? (for certain there is a huge number of forum contributors that understand this stuff far more than I do that I look forward to hearing from that have the knowledge/experience on the subject to know what's best
)
): 