3 ms·

If the underlying issue is that you don't like ads or tracking, you could try installing uBlock origin instead of disabling javascript. There are some other use

If the underlying issue is that you don't like ads or tracking, you could try installing uBlock origin instead of disabling javascript. There are some other useful extensions in this area but uBlock origin is the only one I have experience with. It's been great for me. Usage of javascript as a tool for building web properties is only going to keep increasing, and grumbling about it doesn't solve anything.

gaur 10y ago
> building web properties This phrase gave me pause (why not just say "making wesbites"?), but I think I have a handle on what it implies. "Making websites" is what you do when your main deliverable is content. Maybe you throw in some javascript for a little aesthetic kick or some nice features, but if a user comes to your website with javascript disabled, your goal is to still get the content to them. "Building web properties" is what you do when your main deliverable is non-content: ad clicks, tracking, etc. Whatever content you offer on the site is just a honeypot. If a user comes to your website with javascript disabled, your goal is to intentionally turn them away because they've refused the delivery of your non-content.
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  I used the term "properties" as I thought it would be a more generic term. We are past the days where the internet is only used for static web pages. I wasn't trying to imply monetization via ads. You paint a stark dichotomy between static websites and javascript powered "content honeypots". There are millions of web apps out there that are not the latter, and use javascript to provide real value.
- smsm42 10y ago
  Regular people build websites. Enterprises create (or, more frequently, acquire) web properties. Buying a website for 100M dollars sounds insane, buying a "web property" sounds distinguished.
bumblebeard 10y ago
This annoyed me too. I think it's fair to expect to be able to see something without JavaScript, even if it's not formatted correctly or missing fonts or whatever. I disable JS by default for performance reasons, not just because of tracking.
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  Why is it fair to expect this? On what grounds is the universe obligated to provide this? I fully agree the world would be a better place if websites that primarily deliver text did do so. But I'm not convinced it is reasonable to expect it. As a demographic, javascript disablers are a small minority. Additionally, they have other options for meeting many of their needs (ad blockers, privacy extensions, etc).
  - user5994461 10y ago
    > Why is it fair to expect this? On what grounds is the universe obligated to provide this? So that there can be a nice message 'This website requires JavaScript to operate.".
quadrangle 10y ago
Lots of complaints about how stupid it is for people to require javascript to display text and images does help people realize how stupid that is. Using Javascript and requiring javascript is not the same thing. People who want to apologize for whatever bad shit is in the world always like to complain about complainers, sheesh. What does that solve?
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  You comment assumes the complainer is correct in their analysis of the alleged "bad thing". For the specific case at hand, you haven't provided much of an argument to support this position.
  - quadrangle 10y ago
    Wait, are you actually suggesting the complaint itself is invalid? That it makes sense for a website to fail to show plain text unless it can run some client-side JavaScript program???
    - dwaltrip 10y ago
      It obviously isn't the optimal solution, but there are many factors at play here. A few I can think of: * The available tech stacks and tools for building and iterating on an online magazine with a rich UX that works on a variety of devices * The skillsets of the development team * The trends in app development (such as single page apps, which do offer certain advantages) * The propoprtion of people who disable javascript, especially in the target demographic (probably quite small) * Project budget * The desired features for the current and future versions of the project And so on. Of course, it would be much better to fall back to just displaying the text. But it isn't completely obvious that, in all cases, it is worth whatever additional cost to do so. Outside of the HN-bubble, there are very, very few people who disable javascript.
      - quadrangle 10y ago
        Yeah, it's obvious that there are trends in large picture stuff that drive this stupidity. I get that. It's still stupid. If you find yourself in a position where it's expensive to make sure text can display without JavaScript, then I'd agree that the situation is not your fault. Whoever finds themselves in that situation could rightly complain about how stupid other people are for letting it come to this. Sure, have a long discussion about all the complex challenges and even acknowledge (when it's true) that some stupid shit can get locked-in. Just don't try to deny that it's stupid. There's tons of examples of things in computers that are fundamentally tragically stupid but got locked in and we have to just accept them. We're not yet at that point with Javascript-lock-in, but maybe we're on that path. But even if the situation is hopeless, it's still stupid. It only makes it harder for people to make sense of things if you use excuses to try to deny the stupidity of stupid situations.

gaur 10y ago

> building web properties This phrase gave me pause (why not just say "making wesbites"?), but I think I have a handle on what it implies. "Making websites" is what you do when your main deliverable is content. Maybe you throw in some javascript for a little aesthetic kick or some nice features, but if a user comes to your website with javascript disabled, your goal is to still get the content to them. "Building web properties" is what you do when your main deliverable is non-content: ad clicks, tracking, etc. Whatever content you offer on the site is just a honeypot. If a user comes to your website with javascript disabled, your goal is to intentionally turn them away because they've refused the delivery of your non-content.

dwaltrip 10y ago
I used the term "properties" as I thought it would be a more generic term. We are past the days where the internet is only used for static web pages. I wasn't trying to imply monetization via ads. You paint a stark dichotomy between static websites and javascript powered "content honeypots". There are millions of web apps out there that are not the latter, and use javascript to provide real value.
smsm42 10y ago
Regular people build websites. Enterprises create (or, more frequently, acquire) web properties. Buying a website for 100M dollars sounds insane, buying a "web property" sounds distinguished.

bumblebeard 10y ago

This annoyed me too. I think it's fair to expect to be able to see something without JavaScript, even if it's not formatted correctly or missing fonts or whatever. I disable JS by default for performance reasons, not just because of tracking.

dwaltrip 10y ago
Why is it fair to expect this? On what grounds is the universe obligated to provide this? I fully agree the world would be a better place if websites that primarily deliver text did do so. But I'm not convinced it is reasonable to expect it. As a demographic, javascript disablers are a small minority. Additionally, they have other options for meeting many of their needs (ad blockers, privacy extensions, etc).
- user5994461 10y ago
  > Why is it fair to expect this? On what grounds is the universe obligated to provide this? So that there can be a nice message 'This website requires JavaScript to operate.".

quadrangle 10y ago

Lots of complaints about how stupid it is for people to require javascript to display text and images does help people realize how stupid that is. Using Javascript and requiring javascript is not the same thing. People who want to apologize for whatever bad shit is in the world always like to complain about complainers, sheesh. What does that solve?

dwaltrip 10y ago
You comment assumes the complainer is correct in their analysis of the alleged "bad thing". For the specific case at hand, you haven't provided much of an argument to support this position.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  Wait, are you actually suggesting the complaint itself is invalid? That it makes sense for a website to fail to show plain text unless it can run some client-side JavaScript program???
  - dwaltrip 10y ago
    It obviously isn't the optimal solution, but there are many factors at play here. A few I can think of: * The available tech stacks and tools for building and iterating on an online magazine with a rich UX that works on a variety of devices * The skillsets of the development team * The trends in app development (such as single page apps, which do offer certain advantages) * The propoprtion of people who disable javascript, especially in the target demographic (probably quite small) * Project budget * The desired features for the current and future versions of the project And so on. Of course, it would be much better to fall back to just displaying the text. But it isn't completely obvious that, in all cases, it is worth whatever additional cost to do so. Outside of the HN-bubble, there are very, very few people who disable javascript.
    - quadrangle 10y ago
      Yeah, it's obvious that there are trends in large picture stuff that drive this stupidity. I get that. It's still stupid. If you find yourself in a position where it's expensive to make sure text can display without JavaScript, then I'd agree that the situation is not your fault. Whoever finds themselves in that situation could rightly complain about how stupid other people are for letting it come to this. Sure, have a long discussion about all the complex challenges and even acknowledge (when it's true) that some stupid shit can get locked-in. Just don't try to deny that it's stupid. There's tons of examples of things in computers that are fundamentally tragically stupid but got locked in and we have to just accept them. We're not yet at that point with Javascript-lock-in, but maybe we're on that path. But even if the situation is hopeless, it's still stupid. It only makes it harder for people to make sense of things if you use excuses to try to deny the stupidity of stupid situations.