4 ms·
You've highlighted one of the many advantages to browsing with javascript off by default. I think at this point it should really only be used for must-have case
by compactmani 11y ago
You've highlighted one of the many advantages to browsing with javascript off by default. I think at this point it should really only be used for must-have cases.
- 83457 11y agolike voting on hackernews?
- anujanpan 11y agovoting works with javascript off
- ascagnel_ 11y agoCorrect. Voting works, but the arrow icon will not update.
- PhantomGremlin 11y agoNo, that's not true. Voting works properly, at least in my experience. My current config: OS X, Firefox 45.0.2, NoScript 2.9.0.11. What doesn't work properly is the search at the bottom of the page. For that I switch to Safari (with JS enabled).
- charlesdm 11y agoIsn't like 90% of the web broken these days without JS?
- giancarlostoro 11y agoYes, but that's why I use an extension like NoScript. If it's too badly broken I enable domains 1 by 1 till I get enough content, sometimes websites just look odd or behave odd but still give you what you came for. It also helps to have FlashBlock as well, which will stop plenty of flash adverts from loading in the background.
- oneeyedpigeon 11y agoMaybe, but the typical person doesn't browse the entire web, they browse a tiny part of it. Could be the GP visits sites (such as this one) that don't all depend on JS and there's a positive feedback loop for them.
- peteretep 11y agoNope. Most of it's just fine, and NoScript makes it easy to temporarily enable for sites you do want to interact with.
- chadzawistowski 11y agoI've permanently whitelisted about 150 domains, and temporarily whitelist domains as I need them. It's not very problematic and pays dividends in general web browsing speed.
- dbbk 11y agoHow is that an advantage? Then you wouldn't be able to USE these javascript-heavy apps.
- giancarlostoro 11y agoWhich also raises the question why do these websites not offer versions of their website that at least function enough without all the JS sugarcoating. I miss the early web with simpler designs. Edit: Fixed poor wording.
- cdelsolar 11y agoraises the question
- extrapickles 11y agoThe main issue is that people expect the modern web to behave more like an application, which generally requires client side code. JS is not the only thing to blame, as some CSS can cause the graphics card to switch from 2D to 3D, causing a vast increase in power consumption. It would be much better of there was a good way to have the server issue partial updates of the DOM in response to user action without needing JS glue to make it happen. Web developers can do this now if they don't need to easily react to user input. They can use HTTP multipart messages and slowly stream in HTML as needed. This is also fairly buggy in current browsers as websites stopped using it ever since XMLHttpRequest came out.
- uptown 11y agoBecause designing, building, maintaining and supporting multiple versions of a site costs more. Imagine a tech support call when the first thing you need to determine is whether a user is using your full-featured site or your reduced-functionality site, and then explaining to the end user that they're on entirely the wrong site. Id guess that cost/benefit analysis just doesn't justify the effort in most cases.
- joshkpeterson 11y agoEvery single HN thread. We get it, people who browse without JS feel really superior. But beyond that this discussion is perhaps not interesting -- and it's certainly off-topic.