5 ms·
Obviously, the drawback is that you've introduced a javascript dependency to a core function which definitely doesn't require it. Having said that, I notice tha
by oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
Obviously, the drawback is that you've introduced a javascript dependency to a core function which definitely doesn't require it. Having said that, I notice that paperhive.org renders an entirely blank page if javascript is unavailable, so I guess the password reset is the least of your concerns in that scenario.
- angry-hacker 10y agoAnd what percentage of the users have javascript disabled? Objectively you have bigger concerns when you run a site than 10 people who have js disabled.
- oneeyedpigeon 10y agoDefinitely more than zero. It's not just a case of javascript being disabled, either - there are many other reasons why it might be "unavailable", which is why I used that word. Of course I'm not suggesting you're not allowed to use any javascript on your site, or even that you should only use it when it's strictly necessary, but if it's entirely unnecessary and you don't engage in best practise by, for example, using progressive enhancement, then that's something that could be improved.
- tomjen3 10y agoI used to think so, but information sites probably needs to work without javascript, if only for google bot.
- VertexRed 10y agoIt's 2016, everyone has JS enabled. The ones that don't are most likely bots (now even that's changing thanks to projects like phantomjs).
- dmm 10y ago>everyone has JS enabled. Using an addon like NoScript it's possible to selectively enable javascript per domain. When a website doesn't work without js I am forced to decide whether it's worth enabling js for this site. Very often I decide it's not worth it and I never use that site again.
- spdustin 10y agoYou and I both. Remember, however, that you and I are not a representative sample of the general population of web users.
- andrewflnr 10y agoThat would be meaningful if we were talking about some optional UX feature, but this is security. Does having a non-representative browser config mean we don't deserve security? I think not. Security has to work without JS.
- spdustin 10y agoWhy wouldn't it just <noscript> an input field to enter the token
- grimmdude 10y agoCan I ask your reasoning in doing this?
- marklgr 10y agoWhy should we trust any website and execute their JS code on our machine? What about privacy, if they decide they can track us and sell the information to whoever they want? And even if they're "legit", what about the 3rd parties they might trust wrongly?