12 ms·

The web i want is one that isnt completely broken by not running javascript

by kleptako 10y ago

samfisher83 10y ago
Its too late for that.
- zeveb 10y ago
  It's never too late to do the right thing. It may be expensive, and it may require swallowing one's pride, and it may not have the same benefits that doing it earlier would have, but it's never too late.
  - samfisher83 10y ago
    Would you really want google maps to be static? I remember those days with mapquest. I like my javascript.
    - mynewtb 10y ago
      Google maps is a reasonable use of javascript. Using a dynamic interface like that vastly improved the user experience. Can't say the same about showing an textual article or a photo.
    - hueving 10y ago
      This is like saying electric cars won't work because the energy density of batteries is too low to fly a 747 across the country. JS should be reserved for heavy interactive applications. Not pages that amount to viewing a document.
zeveb 10y ago
This, so much this. There's no reason why this page couldn't work without JavaScript. It's a poll and a display of the results. Sure, enhance it with JavaScript: that's great, and it's cool, and it's useful. But don't force people to execute code when all they really need to do is POST a form and then GET a page. People who do this are wrong.
- mevile 10y ago
  > There's no reason why this page couldn't work without JavaScript. Your position is ridiculous. HTML5 was designed in part to make it easier to create applications that run in your browser. So yes some people will be writing applications that run in your browser. It's like expecting flash sites to work when you don't have flash turned on. Either be happy with your choice or turn it back on. Don't expect the rest of the world to cater to your fringe browser settings.
  - sp332 10y ago
    But this isn't an app. It's a poll and some poll results. We were doing this on the web for decades without invoking JS.
    - gkya 10y ago
      Everything is an app. There are apps that show a GIF and all they do is that on many app-stores, with lot's of downloads because the GIF happens to be that of a woman's bum.
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    Yes, and it's been thoroughly abused by lazy/incompetent developers. That's why we end up with 3 MB pages running React or whatever shiny new web framework Facebook/Google has released to display three paragraphs of text.
  - ldjb 10y ago
    I can understand requiring JavaScript if it's a game or some sort of multimedia experience, but something like this really doesn't need JavaScript. Search engines typically don't run JavaScript, so relying on it can be bad for SEO, and in some cases accessibility. Considering iOS devices don't support Flash, and popularity for Flash is waning, I think it's even worse to suggest a website should cater only to those who can run Flash.
  - Spivak 10y ago
    Okay, let's just make this a formal distinction then. Web pages should use JS only when necessary to enhance the user experience. Web applications can go hog wild and load 10MB of JS libs.
unethical_ban 10y ago
So, a web of static files with hyperlinks?
- sp332 10y ago
  I would really like to have a web of static files with hyperlinks. We could keep it separate from the web of AJAX and touch events and scroll-hijacking. They don't even feel like the same thing anyway.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  That's what gopher is for. The WWW has javascript as a requirement, and I think it's time to stop holding onto any misconceptions otherwise. Apparently this is an unpopular notion. There's an entire protocol that's based on links between plain content - use it! The non-javascript users on the WWW are such a tiny minority that nobody who pays developers is going to bother with the time. The average user wants the extra functionality that even basic JS can provide - demanding that the web be supported without it is akin to demanding support for IE4 on Mac Classic. That is the reality, folks. You don't have to like it, but you should accept it.
  - Johnny_Brahms 10y ago
    i hold gopher in high regard. For most personal projects, gopher would make everything so much easier. Add a bit of convenience stuff, like basic text and image flow without having to do any css . navigation solves itself with gopher. wham, the perfect personal web page.
  - extra88 10y ago
    The average web user is ignorant of the possibilities. If they knew how much faster and stable their web-using experience would be without the excessive, unnecessary JS on many sites, they would gladly vote for "no JS" as a default. The content of most sites created today could reasonably been hosted on sites when IE4 for Mac Classic was current, text, pictures, form fields & buttons. You don't have to prove it but you should build such a site today using methods that would likely mean someone using IE4 for Mac Classic would have some access to the content, albeit not an optimal experience.
denis1 10y ago
This one is on the web devs more than Mozilla. IMO there is not much that a browser vendor can do, when what a large percentage of developers and users care only about the fancy new features.
sp332 10y ago
Maybe we can fix what you don't like about Javascript while keeping the good parts? http://imgur.com/zY6Iu7D http://imgur.com/zY6Iu7D
- pessimizer 10y ago
  I don't like it being required in order to browse effectively static pages on the web. The rest is fine.
  - sp332 10y ago
    What's the difference between having a web server look up an article in a DB and serve it to you, and having a web page's JS look up that article in a DB and pull it to your browser? It seems like that would be the least offensive use of JS.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      For one, you have to execute javascript. For the other, you don't. If you want to do it on the server side, feel free.
      - sp332 10y ago
        But you said you'd be "fine" executing JS for other kinds of pages. What is it about "effectively static" pages that offends you?
        pessimizer 10y ago
        Nothing about static pages offends me.
    - ldjb 10y ago
      You can absolutely use JavaScript to pull an article into the browser. But if the user doesn't have JavaScript, they should still be able to navigate the site the old-fashioned way. It doesn't have to be one way or the other.
pjmlp 10y ago
The Web I want is Hypercard style interactive documents, for all the rest we already have better options. My browser use is not much different than on Web 1.0 days, except when I cannot install a specific native application.
martin_a 10y ago
I just registered an account to upvote on this.
sputr 10y ago
This website is not intended for people who know what Javascript is or even how to turn it off. Most of the web are not (us) geeks, and not everything revolves around us. Plus, there is such a thing as ROI.
- bobajeff 10y ago
  What about blind people that use screen readers?
n3on_net 10y ago
JavaScript is default technology. So it's like if you could disable C++ on windows and then complain that application don't work anymore. JS is like HTML and CSS, core part of today's web.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Not really. I don't run JS by default and the vast majority of sites work. They look funny, but they work.
jypepin 10y ago
serious question: could you explain what you think is wrong with websites using javascript? Why do you refuse running javascript in your browser? My understanding is that javascript is a part of the web today, and everything around it makes it easier to run javascript applications in your browser, making websites more powerful. I personally love this and a lot of website I browse would be worse without javascript (google docs, calendar, etc.), so I have trouble understanding what is wrong with javascript running. Also, since now most apps are complete javascript apps (and not only some DOM manipulation), it seems a lost cause to try to get website optionally "extend" their experience with javascript. That would mostly just imply to re-built most of the page for when javascript is disabled.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Obviously for a real web app like google docs javascript is essential. For a web site (blogs, news sites, shopping) it's not.
- quickben 10y ago
  I have a completely different experience from you. As I'm reading this on my phone, most of the website related experience is better without JavaScript. I also had in the past legally blind co-workers that could barely use a browser, so they had their own problems with JavaScript overriding defaults. By the look of it: if JavaScript proponents designed car doors, there would only be remote unlocking and no physical key. It's just bad engineering lately beign promoted as 'the default way to build webpages'.
- cwmoo740 10y ago
  The problem is that once javascript is enabled on a page, there is too large of a business incentive to tack on google analytics, auto-playing video ads, facebook and linked-in and twitter integration, annoying subscribe popups, etc. Javascript is necessary in the web that I want for the future but I want some standards for what gets run in my browser without me going through manually and whitelisting specific scripts to block out the 10s of MB of crap that get thrown at me every time I go to a new site.
  - 10y ago

The web i want is one that isnt completely broken by not running javascript

samfisher83 10y ago

Its too late for that.

zeveb 10y ago
It's never too late to do the right thing. It may be expensive, and it may require swallowing one's pride, and it may not have the same benefits that doing it earlier would have, but it's never too late.
- samfisher83 10y ago
  Would you really want google maps to be static? I remember those days with mapquest. I like my javascript.
  - mynewtb 10y ago
    Google maps is a reasonable use of javascript. Using a dynamic interface like that vastly improved the user experience. Can't say the same about showing an textual article or a photo.
  - hueving 10y ago
    This is like saying electric cars won't work because the energy density of batteries is too low to fly a 747 across the country. JS should be reserved for heavy interactive applications. Not pages that amount to viewing a document.

zeveb 10y ago

This, so much this. There's no reason why this page couldn't work without JavaScript. It's a poll and a display of the results. Sure, enhance it with JavaScript: that's great, and it's cool, and it's useful. But don't force people to execute code when all they really need to do is POST a form and then GET a page. People who do this are wrong.

mevile 10y ago
> There's no reason why this page couldn't work without JavaScript. Your position is ridiculous. HTML5 was designed in part to make it easier to create applications that run in your browser. So yes some people will be writing applications that run in your browser. It's like expecting flash sites to work when you don't have flash turned on. Either be happy with your choice or turn it back on. Don't expect the rest of the world to cater to your fringe browser settings.
- sp332 10y ago
  But this isn't an app. It's a poll and some poll results. We were doing this on the web for decades without invoking JS.
  - gkya 10y ago
    Everything is an app. There are apps that show a GIF and all they do is that on many app-stores, with lot's of downloads because the GIF happens to be that of a woman's bum.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  Yes, and it's been thoroughly abused by lazy/incompetent developers. That's why we end up with 3 MB pages running React or whatever shiny new web framework Facebook/Google has released to display three paragraphs of text.
- ldjb 10y ago
  I can understand requiring JavaScript if it's a game or some sort of multimedia experience, but something like this really doesn't need JavaScript. Search engines typically don't run JavaScript, so relying on it can be bad for SEO, and in some cases accessibility. Considering iOS devices don't support Flash, and popularity for Flash is waning, I think it's even worse to suggest a website should cater only to those who can run Flash.
- Spivak 10y ago
  Okay, let's just make this a formal distinction then. Web pages should use JS only when necessary to enhance the user experience. Web applications can go hog wild and load 10MB of JS libs.

unethical_ban 10y ago

So, a web of static files with hyperlinks?

sp332 10y ago
I would really like to have a web of static files with hyperlinks. We could keep it separate from the web of AJAX and touch events and scroll-hijacking. They don't even feel like the same thing anyway.
Karunamon 10y ago
That's what gopher is for. The WWW has javascript as a requirement, and I think it's time to stop holding onto any misconceptions otherwise. Apparently this is an unpopular notion. There's an entire protocol that's based on links between plain content - use it! The non-javascript users on the WWW are such a tiny minority that nobody who pays developers is going to bother with the time. The average user wants the extra functionality that even basic JS can provide - demanding that the web be supported without it is akin to demanding support for IE4 on Mac Classic. That is the reality, folks. You don't have to like it, but you should accept it.
- Johnny_Brahms 10y ago
  i hold gopher in high regard. For most personal projects, gopher would make everything so much easier. Add a bit of convenience stuff, like basic text and image flow without having to do any css . navigation solves itself with gopher. wham, the perfect personal web page.
- extra88 10y ago
  The average web user is ignorant of the possibilities. If they knew how much faster and stable their web-using experience would be without the excessive, unnecessary JS on many sites, they would gladly vote for "no JS" as a default. The content of most sites created today could reasonably been hosted on sites when IE4 for Mac Classic was current, text, pictures, form fields & buttons. You don't have to prove it but you should build such a site today using methods that would likely mean someone using IE4 for Mac Classic would have some access to the content, albeit not an optimal experience.

denis1 10y ago

This one is on the web devs more than Mozilla. IMO there is not much that a browser vendor can do, when what a large percentage of developers and users care only about the fancy new features.

sp332 10y ago

Maybe we can fix what you don't like about Javascript while keeping the good parts? http://imgur.com/zY6Iu7D http://imgur.com/zY6Iu7D

pessimizer 10y ago
I don't like it being required in order to browse effectively static pages on the web. The rest is fine.
- sp332 10y ago
  What's the difference between having a web server look up an article in a DB and serve it to you, and having a web page's JS look up that article in a DB and pull it to your browser? It seems like that would be the least offensive use of JS.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    For one, you have to execute javascript. For the other, you don't. If you want to do it on the server side, feel free.
    - sp332 10y ago
      But you said you'd be "fine" executing JS for other kinds of pages. What is it about "effectively static" pages that offends you?
      - pessimizer 10y ago
        Nothing about static pages offends me.
  - ldjb 10y ago
    You can absolutely use JavaScript to pull an article into the browser. But if the user doesn't have JavaScript, they should still be able to navigate the site the old-fashioned way. It doesn't have to be one way or the other.

pjmlp 10y ago

The Web I want is Hypercard style interactive documents, for all the rest we already have better options. My browser use is not much different than on Web 1.0 days, except when I cannot install a specific native application.

martin_a 10y ago

I just registered an account to upvote on this.

sputr 10y ago

This website is not intended for people who know what Javascript is or even how to turn it off. Most of the web are not (us) geeks, and not everything revolves around us. Plus, there is such a thing as ROI.

bobajeff 10y ago
What about blind people that use screen readers?

n3on_net 10y ago

JavaScript is default technology. So it's like if you could disable C++ on windows and then complain that application don't work anymore. JS is like HTML and CSS, core part of today's web.

CaptSpify 10y ago
Not really. I don't run JS by default and the vast majority of sites work. They look funny, but they work.

jypepin 10y ago

serious question: could you explain what you think is wrong with websites using javascript? Why do you refuse running javascript in your browser? My understanding is that javascript is a part of the web today, and everything around it makes it easier to run javascript applications in your browser, making websites more powerful. I personally love this and a lot of website I browse would be worse without javascript (google docs, calendar, etc.), so I have trouble understanding what is wrong with javascript running. Also, since now most apps are complete javascript apps (and not only some DOM manipulation), it seems a lost cause to try to get website optionally "extend" their experience with javascript. That would mostly just imply to re-built most of the page for when javascript is disabled.

ams6110 10y ago
Obviously for a real web app like google docs javascript is essential. For a web site (blogs, news sites, shopping) it's not.
quickben 10y ago
I have a completely different experience from you. As I'm reading this on my phone, most of the website related experience is better without JavaScript. I also had in the past legally blind co-workers that could barely use a browser, so they had their own problems with JavaScript overriding defaults. By the look of it: if JavaScript proponents designed car doors, there would only be remote unlocking and no physical key. It's just bad engineering lately beign promoted as 'the default way to build webpages'.
cwmoo740 10y ago
The problem is that once javascript is enabled on a page, there is too large of a business incentive to tack on google analytics, auto-playing video ads, facebook and linked-in and twitter integration, annoying subscribe popups, etc. Javascript is necessary in the web that I want for the future but I want some standards for what gets run in my browser without me going through manually and whitelisting specific scripts to block out the 10s of MB of crap that get thrown at me every time I go to a new site.
- 10y ago