(In reply to Helen V. Holmes (:helenvholmes) (:✨)(pls ni?)) from comment #33) > (In reply to Jan Keromnes [:janx] from comment #30) > > Maybe as a follow-up improvement, we could show only the scope URI, i.e. > > "/immediate-claim/" (instead of the full URL > > "https://serviceworke.rs/immediate-claim/")? That would remove most of the > > redundant text (the base URL "https://serviceworke.rs", which I think will > > always be the same in both script URL and scope). > > Working on this as a follow-up seems good — no need to block on it, it isn't > doing any harm. > > I almost feel like for quick readability, you might be able to do: > > my-cool-worker.js debug > scope/scope/scope/my-cool-worker.js unregister > > ... assuming the file name is what people are really quickly glancing for. So the question is mostly where to show the origin. Having: my-cool-worker.js Push Debug Scope https://origin.com/scope/scope/ unregister Push Service https://push.com/endpoint/ unsubscribe could work, but my main worry is that most scripts will actually be called "serviceworker.js" or "service-worker.js" (so you'd have to glance at the scope to know where they're from). However, https://origin.com/scope/scope/my-cool-worker.js Push Debug Scope /scope/scope/ unregister Push Service https://push.com/endpoint/ unsubscribe looks imbalanced, mostly because the Push Service subscription I'll add will always show an origin (often different from the service worker's I think). Julian, any thoughts/preference on the issue?

(In reply to Jan Keromnes [:janx] from comment #0) > (In reply to Helen V. Holmes (:helenvholmes) (:✨)(pls ni?)) from comment #33) > > (In reply to Jan Keromnes [:janx] from comment #30) > > > Maybe as a follow-up improvement, we could show only the scope URI, i.e. > > > "/immediate-claim/" (instead of the full URL > > > "https://serviceworke.rs/immediate-claim/")? That would remove most of the > > > redundant text (the base URL "https://serviceworke.rs", which I think will > > > always be the same in both script URL and scope). > > > > Working on this as a follow-up seems good — no need to block on it, it isn't > > doing any harm. > > > > I almost feel like for quick readability, you might be able to do: > > > > my-cool-worker.js debug > > scope/scope/scope/my-cool-worker.js unregister > > > > ... assuming the file name is what people are really quickly glancing for. > > So the question is mostly where to show the origin. Having: > > my-cool-worker.js Push Debug > Scope https://origin.com/scope/scope/ unregister > Push Service https://push.com/endpoint/ unsubscribe > > could work, but my main worry is that most scripts will actually be called > "serviceworker.js" or "service-worker.js" (so you'd have to glance at the > scope to know where they're from). 100% agree, most service worker scripts today are called sw.js or service-worker.js so we can't really use it as a "title". > > However, > > https://origin.com/scope/scope/my-cool-worker.js Push Debug > Scope /scope/scope/ unregister > Push Service https://push.com/endpoint/ unsubscribe > > looks imbalanced, mostly because the Push Service subscription I'll add will > always show an origin (often different from the service worker's I think). > > Julian, any thoughts/preference on the issue? I think this second version is a good compromise for now. Removing the domain from the scope looks fine. Maybe aligning the scope and the push endpoint URL would help? https://origin.com/scope/scope/my-cool-worker.js Push Debug Scope /scope/scope/ unregister Push Service https://push.com/endpoint/ unsubscribe In the long run, maybe the scope and push endpoints could be hidden by default (behind a "more" link à la about:addons ?) ; the unregister/unsubscribe actions could go inside a dropdown button? What about the "domain" highlighting I tried in attachment 8739429 [details] (Bug 1260568)? Could help users scan the list quickly.