Permanently turning off obnoxious READER VIEW popup!

[K Blair]

How do I turn off forever that obnoxious READER VIEW popup?
https://i.imgur.com/jh6diCe.gif

It seems that ever since FF44, I get that obnoxious popup ten
times or maybe twenty times a day, every day.

I can (x) it out each time, but it's adding NO VALUE by popping
up constantly every day all day.

How do I permanently turn Reader View off in my saved profile?
https://i.imgur.com/jh6diCe.gif

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.177.1456236046...@lists.mozilla.org>,

K Blair <k.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> How do I turn off forever that obnoxious READER VIEW popup?
> https://i.imgur.com/jh6diCe.gif
>
> It seems that ever since FF44, I get that obnoxious popup ten
> times or maybe twenty times a day, every day.
>
> I can (x) it out each time, but it's adding NO VALUE by popping
> up constantly every day all day.

The first time you click the x, the pref
browser.reader.detectedFirstArticle is supposed to be toggled to 'true'
so you won't see it again. Assuming it's not getting set to 'true',
you could toggle it manually by entering
"about:config?filter=browser.reader.detectedFirstArticle" into the
address bar then double-clicking that pref. (The only other way I know
of is to toggle reader.parse-on-load.enabled to 'false', which should
disable reader mode entirely.)

Since it should be set automatically, you may have a bigger problem
with prefs not being saved, in which case toggling it manually won't
help for long. There's an article about that at
<http://mzl.la/1BAQrbZ>.

[K Blair]

»Q« wrote:

> The first time you click the x, the pref
> browser.reader.detectedFirstArticle is supposed to be toggled to 'true'
> so you won't see it again. Assuming it's not getting set to 'true',
> you could toggle it manually by entering
> "about:config?filter=browser.reader.detectedFirstArticle" into the
> address bar then double-clicking that pref. (The only other way I know
> of is to toggle reader.parse-on-load.enabled to 'false', which should
> disable reader mode entirely.)
>
> Since it should be set automatically, you may have a bigger problem
> with prefs not being saved, in which case toggling it manually won't
> help for long. There's an article about that at
> <http://mzl.la/1BAQrbZ>.

That solved the problem!

I put this into my user.js for the profile that I copy each time Firefox
is invoked!

user_pref("browser.reader.detectedFirstArticle", true);//Disable obnoxious Reader View nag popup

Then I went to the problem web page and that obnoxious pop up nag went away!
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/apple-vs-fbi-vs-spy-vs-spy/

Thank you for the help!

[VanguardLH]

K Blair wrote on 2016/02/23:

> How do I turn off forever that obnoxious READER VIEW popup?
> https://i.imgur.com/jh6diCe.gif

How can ONE occurence be considered obnoxious? Click the "X" to close
it and it won't appear again; i.e., shows up only the first time you hit
a web site that supports the readability feature (see more at
https://github.com/mozilla/readability).

> It seems that ever since FF44, I get that obnoxious popup ten
> times or maybe twenty times a day, every day.

Then you have extensions or security software that is resetting the
config of Firefox. Q already mentioned the about:config setting that
should get set to True when you X out of the popup.

Do you get that SAME popup all the time or is it a bit different at
different web sites? Any site that attempts to create a new Readability
object, if it succeeds, knows your web browser supports Reader View
mode. Maybe the sites are pushing their own popup.

> How do I permanently turn Reader View off in my saved profile?
> https://i.imgur.com/jh6diCe.gif

(Same URL as already given above.)

In about:config, toggle reader.parse-on-load.enabled to False.

I originally disabled Reader Mode in Firefox and used Evernote's Clearly
add-on. Alas, Evernote discontinued Clearly back in Oct 2012 (last
updated, they dropped the product) so I re-enabled Firefox's Reader Mode
although it only works at web sites that support and generate the
readability object.

[K Blair]

VanguardLH wrote:

> How can ONE occurence be considered obnoxious? Click the "X" to close
> it and it won't appear again; i.e., shows up only the first time you hit
> a web site that supports the readability feature (see more at
> https://github.com/mozilla/readability).

It kept coming back because nobody in their right mind would run Firefox
out of their own non-safe writable profile directory. So I keep a *safe*
non writable Firefox profile directory, and only run firefox by copying
that, and then I dump the used profile each time Firefox is started anew.

> Then you have extensions or security software that is resetting the
> config of Firefox. Q already mentioned the about:config setting that
> should get set to True when you X out of the popup.

Yep. The setting works. Must be something new in FF44 because I didn't
see that in prior versions that I ued.

It's a stupid setting in the first place because it doesn't seem to do
anything. But that's a different issue than simply disabling it forever.

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.295.1456346288...@lists.mozilla.org>,

K Blair <k.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
> > How can ONE occurence be considered obnoxious? Click the "X" to
> > close it and it won't appear again;
>

> It kept coming back because nobody in their right mind would run
> Firefox out of their own non-safe writable profile directory. So I
> keep a *safe* non writable Firefox profile directory, and only run
> firefox by copying that, and then I dump the used profile each time
> Firefox is started anew.

In that case, every time you have an issue with Firefox, the first
thing you should consider is that it's likely you caused it
yourself by crippling Firefox in the way you described. Also, you
should at least mention what you've done every time you need help
dealing with any issue; in this case, it would have saved me the time
I wasted explaining what should happen and looking up the SUMO article
about dealing with prefs which won't stick.

> > Then you have extensions or security software that is resetting the
> > config of Firefox. Q already mentioned the about:config setting
> > that should get set to True when you X out of the popup.
>
> Yep. The setting works. Must be something new in FF44 because I didn't
> see that in prior versions that I ued.
>
> It's a stupid setting in the first place because it doesn't seem to
> do anything. But that's a different issue than simply disabling it
> forever.

It does do something -- it automagically turns off the
notification, so taht people who have already been notified about the
reader view feature from being notified over and over again.

[K Blair]

»Q« wrote:

> In that case, every time you have an issue with Firefox, the first
> thing you should consider is that it's likely you caused it
> yourself by crippling Firefox in the way you described.

I did consider it but I thought I had it all covered!
It took me many hours to set up Firefox when 44 came out.

I didn't realize, for example, that they turned *OFF* the ability
to NOT check signatures, for example, in FF44.

In another release, they adding the idiotic HSTS text file which
anyone could read at the time.

Prior to that, in FF 39, they broke the layout.css.devPixelsPerPx
which took me days to figure out.

Every time Firefox releases, I have to fight a million new issues,
and I simply missed this one.

> Also, you should at least mention what you've done every time
> you need help dealing with any issue

Do you really want to see the huge list of things I have to
change just to get a new release of Firefox to work?

It's three pages long!
- I have to turn off all plugins
- I have to add a few necessary extensions
- I have to clean out scores of default phone-home domains
- I have to turn off automatic updates in multiple locations
- I have to set and lock down preferences
- I have to add basic features like a stationary close button
- I have to remove most of the extraneous menus
- I have to disable referrer headers
- I have to disable WebRTC and other privacy tracking "features"
- I have to disable geolocation and crash reporting
and that's just off the top of my head.

So, in this case, I missed one.

> It does do something -- it automagically turns off the
> notification, so taht people who have already been notified about the
> reader view feature from being notified over and over again.

Actually, I wrote it wrong. The *setting* works fine.
The Reader View itself is what I was saying was a stupid feature.
If it does anything, I can't see what it does that's useful.

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.317.1456361970...@lists.mozilla.org>,
K Blair <k.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> »Q« wrote:

> > Also, you should at least mention what you've done every time
> > you need help dealing with any issue
>
> Do you really want to see the huge list

No, I meant you should mention that you've made your profile read-only.

[Dave Symes]

In article
<mailman.317.1456361970...@lists.mozilla.org>,
K Blair <k.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
[Snippy]

> Do you really want to see the huge list of things I have to
> change just to get a new release of Firefox to work?

> It's three pages long!
> - I have to turn off all plugins
> - I have to add a few necessary extensions
> - I have to clean out scores of default phone-home domains
> - I have to turn off automatic updates in multiple locations
> - I have to set and lock down preferences
> - I have to add basic features like a stationary close button
> - I have to remove most of the extraneous menus
> - I have to disable referrer headers
> - I have to disable WebRTC and other privacy tracking "features"
> - I have to disable geolocation and crash reporting
> and that's just off the top of my head.

As a sufferer of RTW. As I would assume a number of folks on this NG are,
I'm kinda lost for words at the waste of life, time...

Here's my list of things I do when a firefox update is due for arrival.

1) I make a copy of my whole profile on a separate backup HD.

2) I Update Firefox.

3) I run and quit Firefox twice to check its working okay. Probably utter
a few expletives about the parentage of the people at Mozilla who've again
hacked out something important to Me, or added something no one wants...

4) I get on with my life...

Dave

RTW. Retirement Time Warp. If you don't know or understand what it is,
you are not retired, yet. ;-)

D.

--

Dave Triffid

[EE]

You can preserve settings with a user.js file. You can disable all
those things like geolocation, telemetry, webRTC, automatic updates from
settings made in about:config, and then save the settings into a user.js
file, which will save your settings and restore them if they get changed
by a new version of the browser.

Why do you need to turn off plugins?
What menus are "extraneous"?
If you disable all referrers, you can have problems with some websites.
Just blocking third-party referrers rarely causes problems. You can
do that with RefControl.
What is a stationary close button?

[K Blair]

»Q« wrote:

> No, I meant you should mention that you've made your profile read-only.

The profile isn't itself read only.

I *copy* the profile to a new profile, and *that* new profile is what
Firefox uses.

That's why I have to make all the changes I need in files such as
the user.js and xulstore.json files.

[K Blair]

Dave Symes wrote:

> As a sufferer of RTW. As I would assume a number of folks on this NG
> are, I'm kinda lost for words at the waste of life, time...
>
> Here's my list of things I do when a firefox update is due for arrival.
>
> 1) I make a copy of my whole profile on a separate backup HD.
>
> 2) I Update Firefox.
>
> 3) I run and quit Firefox twice to check its working okay. Probably
> utter a few expletives about the parentage of the people at Mozilla
> who've again hacked out something important to Me, or added something no
> one wants...
>
> 4) I get on with my life...

I am retired, just like you are.
The problem with *reusing* the files is that they change and deprecate
keywords all the time, so, over time, I'm left with garbage if I reuse
the user.js file between releases.

As just one example, Firefox used to have a well designed closeButton
but then they removed it some time prior to Firefox 29 where you could
only access it by setting browser.tabs.closeButtons: 2 or 3 but then
some time around Firefox 31 that setting, even if it existed, did
absolutely nothing anymore.

So, if you keep the user.js file, over time, it will just contain
garbage. That's why with each release, I start fresh.

[K Blair]

EE wrote:

> You can preserve settings with a user.js file. You can disable all
> those things like geolocation, telemetry, webRTC, automatic updates from
> settings made in about:config, and then save the settings into a user.js
> file, which will save your settings and restore them if they get changed
> by a new version of the browser.

I just wrote to Dave Symes why that's a bad idea.

> Why do you need to turn off plugins?

Fingerprinting.

> What menus are "extraneous"?

Most of them.
Probably more than half I never use.

The only time they get used is when I accidentally hit them while wading
through them.

> If you disable all referrers, you can have problems with some websites.

Why?

> What is a stationary close button?

Same thing that "browser.tabs.closeButtons: 3" did way back around
Firefox 30 or so. It's a close button that stays in one spot.

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.373.1456430270...@lists.mozilla.org>,

K Blair <k.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> »Q« wrote:
>
> > No, I meant you should mention that you've made your profile
> > read-only.
>
> The profile isn't itself read only.
>
> I *copy* the profile to a new profile, and *that* new profile is what
> Firefox uses.

Mentioning that would be good enough; it would have avoided any
confusion about why changes were never taking effect.

[EE]

K Blair wrote:
> EE wrote:
>
>> You can preserve settings with a user.js file. You can disable all
>> those things like geolocation, telemetry, webRTC, automatic updates from
>> settings made in about:config, and then save the settings into a user.js
>> file, which will save your settings and restore them if they get changed
>> by a new version of the browser.
>
> I just wrote to Dave Symes why that's a bad idea.
>

>> If you disable all referrers, you can have problems with some websites.
>
> Why?
>
>

I still find a user.js file useful, and I do go through it once in a
while and weed out settings that are no longer valid.

Some sites use first-party referrers to check whether you have logged
in, or accessed something specific before accessing something else
specific. If you block those referrers, you will have problems. Since
the person running the server can see what you accessed if he keeps a
log of that sort of thing, there is not much point anyway.

[K Blair]

»Q« wrote:

> Mentioning that would be good enough; it would have avoided any
> confusion about why changes were never taking effect.

I apologize.
I didn't think it mattered.
But it did.

What does the Reader View do anyway?
When I clicked on it, it didn't simplify anything whatsoever.

[K Blair]

EE wrote:

> Since
> the person running the server can see what you accessed if he keeps a
> log of that sort of thing, there is not much point anyway.

I never use the same IP address twice, so I don't see what a log would
do unless I actually have to log in with a specific username & password.

[VanguardLH]

The Reader View icon should not appear unless the web page's script
creates a readability object. Obviously if you use NoScript or
otherwise have scripting disabled then this won't work.

https://github.com/mozilla/readability

I'm not claiming that I could understand the page's code but do you have
an example where the Reader View icon appears but clicking on it makes
no change in what the web browser renders and shows to you? If the page
is already simple, there may be no parsing triggers for the lib to slice
out content to present it differently.

Visit http://www.capstone.cse.msu.edu/2012-08/projects/mozilla/ which
should show the Reader View icon at the right end of the address bar.
It's the gray-colored icon that looks like an open book. Click on it
and the banner and and frames (with images, in this case) should
disappear to show just text and inline images, and the icon should
change to orange colored.

Just to be sure, when you visit a web site where the delivered page
supposedly has a Reader View mode, do you see the book icon at the
right-side of Firefox's address bar?

http://winaero.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Firefox-38-reader-mode-in-action.png

That shows the Reader View icon in orange because readability mode was
been activated. When you first visit a web page, and because Firefox
does not automatically go into Reader View mode, that icon will be in
light gray color. You click on it to activate the parser in the script
whereupon the icon should change to orange colored.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/view-articles-reader-view-firefox-android

[VanguardLH]

K Blair wrote on 2016/02/26:

> I never use the same IP address twice, so I don't see what a log would
> do unless I actually have to log in with a specific username & password.

You are using TOR? Even so, you don't get to define the exit node. TOR
exit nodes have been and are being mapped so a site, like a forum, could
choose to block them just as with any other IP blacklist they may use.

Are you using an anonymizing service? That rotates you through
different IP addresses but they are all THEIR assigned IP addresses
(i.e., for the nodes in their mesh network). There are blacklists of
anonymizer IP addresses, too.

However you might change your IP address doesn't eliminate the use of
fingerprinting (look it up to learn, visit panopticlick.com). Even if
you configure your web browser to purge all data (cookies, site
preferences, passwords, history, yadda yadda), you can still be
fingerprinted. Canvas, an HTML5 feature, can assign to you a unique ID
that lasts across web browser sessions (because they measure the
behavior of your software config, not by storing data on your host), and
why, for example, I use the Canvas Blocker add-on for Firefox.

While NoScript will eliminate canvas() read calls from assigning you a
unique ID to fingerprint you, most times users will whitelist the sites
that they frequent. Once a site is whitelisted, scripts are allowed to
run there so Canvas can be used to track you. AdBlocker Plus, uBlock
Origin, and other ad/tracking blockers that are subscribed to the
EasyPrivacy blacklist will eliminate 95% of the sources that use Canvas
tracking but obviously there are 5% other sources using that trick (and
I've hit them since the Canvas Blocker add-on alerts me to when a site
is attempting to read a canvas object).

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/canvasblocker/
https://github.com/kkapsner/CanvasBlocker/
and read
http://thehackernews.com/2014/07/html5-canvas-fingerprint-widely-used.html
https://www.bing.com/search?q=canvas%20html5%20fingerprint

If you don't purge Site Preferences in Firefox, a flaw in HSTS support
results in being able to track you across web browser sessions, too. Of
course, that means losing site preferences between web browser sessions,
like zoom and fonts you selected at a web site.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/10/unpatched-browser-weaknesses-can-be-exploited-to-track-millions-of-web-users/
http://www.radicalresearch.co.uk/lab/hstssupercookies

Visit the 2nd site. Record what number they assign to you (in the blue
box area). Unload Firefox (or whatever web browser you want to use).
Revisit the site. Do you get the same ID number? Then, in Firefox,
configure it to purge Site Preferences on exit. Repeat the test and you
will get a different number on each visit to the site (which means they
cannot use that trick to track you). The number will stay the same
within a web browser session because you have not yet decided to purge
or not the site preferences being recorded during that web session. The
test requires you unload all instance of the web browser and reload it
to show that the ID number stays the same across web browser sessions,
and to show that it can be used to track you.

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.499.1456586900...@lists.mozilla.org>,

VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:

> You are using TOR? Even so, you don't get to define the exit node.

You do. ExitNodes and other related torrc prefs are covered in the
man page.

[crossposted, followup set to mozilla.general]

[K Blair]

VanguardLH wrote:

> The Reader View icon should not appear unless the web page's script
> creates a readability object. Obviously if you use NoScript or
> otherwise have scripting disabled then this won't work.

That's probably why it doesn't work because I do use NoScript.

> Visit http://www.capstone.cse.msu.edu/2012-08/projects/mozilla/ which
> should show the Reader View icon at the right end of the address bar.

It does show the little "book" icon.
Thanks for showing me how to activate and use it.
I didn't notice it working before but that's because it was blocked.

Here's the walk through you so kindly provided:
1. Visiting the capstone page https://i.imgur.com/h8FR0zg.gif
2. Pressing Reader View https://i.imgur.com/RzwzZAA.gif
3. Unblocking Reader View https://i.imgur.com/vQm7p39.gif

I can see Reader View being useful when I need to print a page to PDF
where often the PDF is messed up because of frames and tables.

Otherwise, it's just a gimmick it seems to me (at least on a full-sized
computer anyway). On a mobile device it might be very useful though.

Thanks!

[WaltS48]

On 02/28/2016 03:26 AM, K Blair wrote:
> Otherwise, it's just a gimmick it seems to me (at least on a full-sized
> computer anyway). On a mobile device it might be very useful though.

A gimmick?

Another users perspective.

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.support.firefox/z2XI3Pvri8I/HVmCrMYPKnAJ>

--
Ubuntu 15.10 | Thunderbird 45.0b1(Beta)
Go Bucs! Go Steelers! Go Pitt! Go Pens! Go Sabres!
Visit Pittsburgh <http://www.visitpittsburgh.com/>
Coexist · Understanding Across Divides <https://www.coexist.org/>

[VanguardLH]

Hmm, NoScript must work a bit differently than disabling all of
Javascript. Apparently it allows enough script to let the web browser
recognize there is a readability object defined in the page's script.

I don't use NoScript but do have an add-on that lets me quickly and
easily disable Javascript. With Javascript completely disabled in
Firefox, the book icon does NOT appear. Without any script support,
there can be no Javascript objects defined, like the readability object.
So, for me with Javascript disabled, visiting the capstone page results
in seeing a simple web page and no book icon. That is, with Javascript
completely disabled, there can be no Reader View mode. That NoScript
still has the web browser see there is a readability object as you show
in your first pic means NoScript is not blocking all scripts on that
page.

Then, per your 2nd pic, you click on the Reader View icon but see no
content in the web page. That is because the readability object is
created by Javascript, and without Javascript you don't get to see the
parsing done by that readability library.

Your 3rd pic shows what happens when you disable NoScript. That's what
I get when Javascript is enabled; i.e., when I do NOT use the
No-Javascript add-on to disable Javascript. With Javascript available,
the readability object can be defined and the parser exercised against
the content to display the simpler view.

Reader View doesn't always help. It depends on how much garbage the
parser has to remove while trying to maintain some of the formatting so
the remaining content is legible with decent layout. Even Evernote's
Clearly add-on didn't always work. The parsed content could be harder
to read because too much formatting was lost.

So there appears a difference in how NoScript disables Javascript and
how other add-ons merely change the javascript.enabled setting in
Firefox (to disable/enable Javascript). With Javascript completely
disabled, you won't even see the Reader View icon in the addressbar
because the readability object is something defined by Javascript. It
is possible in NoScript to define different levels of script blocking
where not all scripting is block but only some of it is. For example, I
believe you can configure NoScript to all all scripts at the domain
level. That is, all scripts at the visited domain are allowed if they
are retrieved from that domain, like being within the delivered web page
or resources linked to by the web page but come from the same domain as
did the delivered web page. You end up blocking off-site or off-domain
script resources. You may choose to allow the site that you chose to
visit to run their scripts but don't want to allow scripts that come
from elsewhere, like in ad frames a site uses to pipe content from some
other source. Sites may dictate what script functions the advertizers
may use in their ads but that doesn't mean there is no abuse or
miscommunication or ignorance by the advertizer or whomever they
contracted to deliver their ads to the site you visited.

As I recall, when I previously used NoScript, and to prevent it from
destroying usability of all the sites that I deliberately choose to
visit, I configured it for "Temporarily allow top-level sites by
default" and selecting "Base 2nd level domains". A site may bounce
between their own hosts (e.g., www, code, support, etc) with their pages
navigating between those hosts and not allowing their scripts could
break that navigation. My use of NoScript was to block scripts coming
from off-domain, like through ad frames.

If I visit an unknown or untrusted site, I start with Javascript already
disabled in the web browser. I don't need NoScript for that. Some
features, like XSS, only work for sites that you whitelist, which means
you have to whitelist every site you plan to revisit. Using NoScript
requires a lot more user effort and training than just "install and go".
It digs so deeply into a web page that its list of blockages may not
tell you what it really did to break a page. Unbreaking functionality
in a web page but not letting go of the reins means understanding more
about HTML, CSS, and other web programming that the typical user hasn't
a clue how to fix a broken web site other than to whitelist the whole
site. Yes, it can be useful but more often is a pain and causes too
much interference that casual users won't understand. It's like handing
someone a toolbox with every tool needed for all jobs and expecting that
alone to give them the expertise to replace head gaskets, adjust valve
lash, replace valve guides, or anything beyond oil and filter replace.

[VanguardLH]

In addition to my prior reply (if it shows up since Mozilla's
email-to-NNTP setup doesn't always work) ...

When visiting a page with the Reader View icon, you should hover over
NoScript's toolbar icon and select "Allow" on the about:reader item.
That is an internal URI used by Firefox to use that internal resource.
While NoScript already has many internal about: pages in its pre-defined
whitelist, they did not add about:reader. Looks like the NoScript
author has some catching up to do. The readability object has been
around since FF v38.

If I were to compile a list of all supported about: pages in the latest
version of Firefox, I'm sure that I'd find several that NoScript has not
yet included in their pre-defined whitelist (and which are disabled to
prevent you deleting them since they are integral to functionality
inside of Firefox).

[Chris Ilias]

On 2016-02-28 4:14 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> In addition to my prior reply (if it shows up since Mozilla's
> email-to-NNTP setup doesn't always work) ...

In your case, it's because your messages are held for moderator
approval, and I reject some. For more info, visit
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.support.firefox/0UOSxo20f1s/CfGHo8M23vkJ>

--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.509.1456586839...@lists.mozilla.org>,

VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:

> The Reader View icon should not appear unless the web page's script
> creates a readability object. Obviously if you use NoScript or
> otherwise have scripting disabled then this won't work.

No, Reader View can work on html which doesn't have any scripts at
all.

[VanguardLH]

Q wrote on 2016/02/28:

> No, Reader View can work on html which doesn't have any scripts at
> all.

From:

https://github.com/mozilla/readability

It certainly looks like the Javascript reabilities object must be
defined. When I visit a site with Javascript enabled (an unfettered by
something like NoScript) that shows the Reader View icon, disabling
Javascript and refreshing the page makes the Reader View icon disappear.
So it looks like Reader View triggers on a reability object getting
defined by Javascript. Javascript on = Reader View mode available.
Javascript off = Reader View mode not available.

In the OP's case, I noticed the problem introduced by NoScript is that
the about:reader internal page is not in NoScript's whitelist. The user
could temporarily allow that resource but I don't see why not always
whitelist it.

Then, after your comment, I started looking around to see if Reader View
mode might be available without creating a Javascripted readibility
object. Apparently you are correct. I've seen mention that Reader View
will be made available if the web browser sees at least one pair of <P>
or <DIV> tag around some text and that text is at least 7 words with a
total of 516 bytes. So <P>{7 words of 74 chars each}<P> would trigger
Reader View mode. The thread below mentions the minimum requirements to
trigger Reader View mode:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30730300/optimize-website-to-show-reader-view-in-firefox/30750212#30750212

That would explain why with NoScript enabled and visiting a
non-whitelisted site that Reader View mode might be available but it
depends on how non-cluttered is the article text.

Too bad the GIT project or Firefox have decided not to document their
code. Not like an Engineering Specification that details the
implementation of the code but more like a Functional Specification that
describes what the later written Engineering Spec is supposed to
accomplish. I see no reason why the criteria for Reader View mode
should remain a secret privy only to those that delve into the code.
This is not a security or privacy feature.