Greasy Fork

I like it. I like it alot. I highly recommend people try it out.

Any chance that (in-future - I realize it'll be alot of work. Maybe.) getting the features externalized? ESPECIALLY a per-site config? (There's a script that does this fairly well... W.A.R. Links Checker Premium)

The more I use it, the more I discover that there are certain features I want/don't on different sites.

Sure.

Please detail what you want exactly, and I'll do mmy best to bring it into fruition.

(There's a script that does this fairly well... W.A.R. Links Checker Premium)

Not that one (...Maybe...) - this one: https://greasyfork.org/scripts/4255-linkify-plus-plus

What I'm thinking is, all the high-level "types" you have - eg Mail, Feed - would be sectioned into Categories; from a config panel, user can checkbox which categories to activate; and at either top or bottom (like Linkify Plus Plus) of the config panel, there's option to have the choices apply only the site, or globally.

From a snip of LPP config panel

W.A.R. Links Checker config...

Good idea

Azazello, are these configuration dialogs native to userscripts or are custom made?

I've started to use userscript configuration only a couple of weeks ago and I'm intending to implement a settings dialog in Newspaper Feed Reader.

Generally, I think your idea is great. This way, we can make open standards to appear on a default installation and centralized platforms to appear if onself so chooses.

Azazello, which configuration interface do you think is best to utilize?

https://github.com/sizzlemctwizzle/GM_config

https://github.com/dataarts/dat.gui

https://github.com/colejd/guify

Azazello, which configuration interface do you think is best to utilize?

https://github.com/sizzlemctwizzle/GM_config
https://github.com/dataarts/dat.gui
https://github.com/colejd/guify

Sorry, was not ghosting, I didn't receive any email with responses to the thread.

I'll admit I'm not a GUI connoisseur so I wouldn't be the best to advise or judge them.

I will request, on behalf of our shrinking 'community' (however if you have to reject, we understand) that the gui can also work using Greasemonkey v3.11. Some of us use that with alternative browsers. Yup, I know, old technology and all that. But... those examples I gave above do continue to work with v3.11, so it's doable, even if not a scalable option.

Azazello, are these configuration dialogs native to userscripts or are custom made?

I'm 99% certain each are custom-made.

Wish we could give an award to 'W.A.R. Links Checker' developer -- imagine the work that went into making just the GUI...

I do support the efforts for gui standardization, re: your 3 links - makes it much easier for developers to create, maintain, expand.

Just hoping that backward compatibility might be supported for us using old-skool GMv3.11

Then we can try the dat.gui or guify.

What web browsers or software use GMv3.11?

I know specifically Waterfox Classic. There may be others.

Would GM.registerMenuCommand be a feasible solution?

Azazello, please install the current version and open the Greasemonkey menu on a page which offers subject links, and tell me what do you think.

Hi schimon I just updated the script and tried it.

Sorry I must be missing something?-- It looks the same as before. What's new? There is no config box similar to the ones I showed above.

I'm using Firefox 115ESR and Tampermonkey 5.1.0

No configuration yet.

I only added the items to the "monkey menu".

I would think of a configuration UI.

If you would, please provide me with a basic set of controllers for the UI.

Hi @schimon, I'll take some time to sketch out a kinda 'features mapping to a gui' . Won't be quick! But let's see what ideas can be kicked around.