3 ms·

It looks absolutely fantastic with JavaScript disabled though (which is how I browse the Web most of the time): http://f.cl.ly/items/0Y3e3k3A17293r0s2y3d/Scree

• apatters 11y ago
  I would much rather see an implementation of the Web where by default websites need to ask for your permission to load and execute scripts. This would prompt the creation of a widely accessible "reach web" which would never break screen readers or URLs, wouldn't invade your privacy, and could be accessed with a text-only browser. Then there would also be the "rich web" - parts of sites which behave like an app and consequently need user approval to run, rather like you need to "approve" an actual app by downloading it. Many challenges to consider but I think this would solve a lot of problems.
  • arm 11y ago
    Completely agree with you. Actually, I was oversimplifying when I said I have JavaScript disabled. I’m actually using JS Blocker¹, which gives me your first sentence². Of course, the end user using a browser extension to gain that functionality instead of it simply being a part of the Web does nothing to actually encourage the creation of a “reach web”. ―――――― ¹ — http://jsblocker.toggleable.com/ http://jsblocker.toggleable.com/ ² — http://f.cl.ly/items/0q1m280M40290t222n0U/js_blocker.png http://f.cl.ly/items/0q1m280M40290t222n0U/js_blocker.png
    • marrs 11y ago
      Wow, 2 other people in the universe who actually care about this stuff. I thought I was the only one!