6 ms·

oh come on. It's 2015, not 1999. If you don't have javascript enabled, do you honestly expect to be able to read half of the internet?

cm2187 11y ago
For privacy and security I do the same. Requiring javascript to just view a blog article is insane.
- shadowmint 11y ago
  Don't be ridiculous. There's something to be said for supporting accessibility, and I completely endorse that, but if you turn javascript off because you want to, don't complain when you can't read or use a modern website. The web uses javascript. Get used to it.
  - gadrfgaesgysd 11y ago
    "modern website" The text is in plain format in the source file. What does the JS add besides actually showing the text. Nothing. In 1999 the Web had aligned text, fonts, and hyperlinks. In 2015 we need JS to do this!?
    - TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
      Agreed. As I said: it's a trivial fix.
  - mondoshawan 11y ago
    Don't be myopic: accessibility standards do not require JS.
  - wtbob 11y ago
    > There's something to be said for supporting accessibility, and I completely endorse that, but if you turn javascript off because you want to, don't complain when you can't read or use a modern website. > The web uses javascript. Get used to it. There's absolutely no reason to require the execution of potentially malicious code in order to read an article. Yes, web apps require JavaScript (and I don't use very many of them, for precisely that reason), but a web page, that is a resource fetched via HTTP (the hypertext transfer protocol) and encoded in HTML (hypertext markup language), simply doesn't and shouldn't. The Internet is about communication; it's about the exchange of information.
  - dang 11y ago
    Please don't be personally abrasive in HN comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
For me, the utility of reading some random blog post that requires JS is far less than the potential consequences of enabling JS for every random blog post, given that most browser exploits require JS. As such, when the only reason that a site requires JS to be readable is sloppy coding, yes, I call them out on it. I enable JS only for things that require it for a good reason, and where I am reasonably sure that they won't be exploited. Doing a fancy fade-in on load (which, by the way, can easily be done accessibly) is not a good reason, and I am not reasonably sure that some random blog won't be exploited.
dec0dedab0de 11y ago
It's 2015, not 1999. If you don't have javascript enabled, do you honestly expect to be able to read half of the internet? Yes.
- shadowmint 11y ago
  too bad I guess. /shrug
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    Too bad? The overwhelming majority of pages work without javascript.
codedokode 11y ago
Disabling javascript makes Chromium eat less memory and makes pages load faster. Also all sort of annoying popups, effects, ads and social tracking buttons do not work without it while page content is usually readable. That's why I have JS enabled only for trusted websites like Youtube and disabled everywhere else. It just makes browsing the web more comfortable. It's sad that Chromium doesn't have a way to disable CSS on a per-domain basis (and browser extensions are potential backdoors so I'm not going to install them).
- bjacobel 11y ago
  > trusted websites like YouTube ...
  - detaro 11y ago
    ?
    - TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
      Completely sidestepping the question of if the grandparent comment is correct, they are trying to imply that YouTube shouldn't be trusted.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
smoe 11y ago
Even in 2015 I expect to be able to read text centric articles without javascript, on slow internet connections and or with low spec hardware. I don't have js disabled on my laptop, but i find it extremely annoying, that a large part of the “first world” internet is practically unusable if you don't own a current generation high end smart phone just because of unnecessary javascript shenanigans. I'm not referring to this site in particular, it works well after loading.
Retra 11y ago
>It's 2015, not 1999 That gives you 16 years to learn how to make a simple, efficient, portable web page.
wtbob 11y ago
> It's 2015, not 1999. If you don't have javascript enabled, do you honestly expect to be able to read half of the internet? Yes, I expect to be able to read data without having to execute code. And, FWIW, the Internet was pretty great in 1999. In many ways (but not all, of course) it was better than what we're stuck with now.
mirimir 11y ago
I use NoScript, and allow only the scripts that I need to see what I want on sites. All trackers are blacklisted.

cm2187 11y ago

For privacy and security I do the same. Requiring javascript to just view a blog article is insane.

shadowmint 11y ago
Don't be ridiculous. There's something to be said for supporting accessibility, and I completely endorse that, but if you turn javascript off because you want to, don't complain when you can't read or use a modern website. The web uses javascript. Get used to it.
- gadrfgaesgysd 11y ago
  "modern website" The text is in plain format in the source file. What does the JS add besides actually showing the text. Nothing. In 1999 the Web had aligned text, fonts, and hyperlinks. In 2015 we need JS to do this!?
  - TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
    Agreed. As I said: it's a trivial fix.
- mondoshawan 11y ago
  Don't be myopic: accessibility standards do not require JS.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > There's something to be said for supporting accessibility, and I completely endorse that, but if you turn javascript off because you want to, don't complain when you can't read or use a modern website. > The web uses javascript. Get used to it. There's absolutely no reason to require the execution of potentially malicious code in order to read an article. Yes, web apps require JavaScript (and I don't use very many of them, for precisely that reason), but a web page, that is a resource fetched via HTTP (the hypertext transfer protocol) and encoded in HTML (hypertext markup language), simply doesn't and shouldn't. The Internet is about communication; it's about the exchange of information.
- dang 11y ago
  Please don't be personally abrasive in HN comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

TheLoneWolfling 11y ago

For me, the utility of reading some random blog post that requires JS is far less than the potential consequences of enabling JS for every random blog post, given that most browser exploits require JS. As such, when the only reason that a site requires JS to be readable is sloppy coding, yes, I call them out on it. I enable JS only for things that require it for a good reason, and where I am reasonably sure that they won't be exploited. Doing a fancy fade-in on load (which, by the way, can easily be done accessibly) is not a good reason, and I am not reasonably sure that some random blog won't be exploited.

dec0dedab0de 11y ago

It's 2015, not 1999. If you don't have javascript enabled, do you honestly expect to be able to read half of the internet? Yes.

shadowmint 11y ago
too bad I guess. /shrug
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  Too bad? The overwhelming majority of pages work without javascript.

codedokode 11y ago

Disabling javascript makes Chromium eat less memory and makes pages load faster. Also all sort of annoying popups, effects, ads and social tracking buttons do not work without it while page content is usually readable. That's why I have JS enabled only for trusted websites like Youtube and disabled everywhere else. It just makes browsing the web more comfortable. It's sad that Chromium doesn't have a way to disable CSS on a per-domain basis (and browser extensions are potential backdoors so I'm not going to install them).

bjacobel 11y ago
> trusted websites like YouTube ...
- detaro 11y ago
  ?
  - TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
    Completely sidestepping the question of if the grandparent comment is correct, they are trying to imply that YouTube shouldn't be trusted.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

smoe 11y ago

Even in 2015 I expect to be able to read text centric articles without javascript, on slow internet connections and or with low spec hardware. I don't have js disabled on my laptop, but i find it extremely annoying, that a large part of the “first world” internet is practically unusable if you don't own a current generation high end smart phone just because of unnecessary javascript shenanigans. I'm not referring to this site in particular, it works well after loading.

Retra 11y ago

>It's 2015, not 1999 That gives you 16 years to learn how to make a simple, efficient, portable web page.

wtbob 11y ago

> It's 2015, not 1999. If you don't have javascript enabled, do you honestly expect to be able to read half of the internet? Yes, I expect to be able to read data without having to execute code. And, FWIW, the Internet was pretty great in 1999. In many ways (but not all, of course) it was better than what we're stuck with now.

mirimir 11y ago

I use NoScript, and allow only the scripts that I need to see what I want on sites. All trackers are blacklisted.