4 ms·

Well, that's quite unfair. JavaScript is also used for creating interactive web applications - not just tracking users. Really your attitude comes off unnecessa

Well, that's quite unfair. JavaScript is also used for creating interactive web applications - not just tracking users. Really your attitude comes off unnecessarily aggressive.

rhizome 10y ago
Is it more aggressive than the uses to which JS is being put these days?
Gracana 10y ago
Obviously things like gdocs need JavaScript, but blogs and news sites and forums sure don't.
- jdormit 10y ago
  I think it depends on what the JavaScript is used for. I agree that blogs and news site should be static, but forums - and in general, sites with a high degree of user interactivity - can see significant UX improvements with some JavaScript, for things like asynchronous loading, changing the UI without reloading the page, and even nice animations (although many of those can be done in CSS these days). However, graceful degradation is very important - disabliing JavaScript on these sites shouldn't break them, merely impact the UX. [Edit] "blogs and news sites should be static" -> this should read "blogs and news sites don't need JavaScript"
  - Gracana 10y ago
    Agreed, enhancements are good (and often nice on a modern devices with all the bells and whistles enabled), so long as it degrades nicely.
CaptSpify 10y ago
There are exceptions where JS is needed. They are exceptions though. A vast majority of the sites I see now are web-pages that think they need to be SPAs. Sorry, sucks to be them, but if they didn't mis-design, I wouldn't mis-interpret their intentions.
gkya 10y ago
How can one know that first time viewing a webpage? I just enable some particular websites to run JS because I know that they are indeed interactive web applications that I want to (read: have been constrained to) use. Also, most interactive web applications can stay just as interactive even though they were to reduce the amount of JS and CSS libs, fonts, images, icons, videos and other stuff that they thoughtlessly pull in. I disabled fonts loading on webpages and all the search boxes are now an "fl" ligature for me, though many times I see that it's not more cryptic then before I disabled fonts, because weird icons some people invented are just as meaningless to me as random letters. I've gotten used to the fact that an identity sign is for a meny, but every other day someone invents another one that now I can't click anything without fear and uncertainty, as most of the time no-one bothers to put a tooltip or a litte label.

Well, that's quite unfair. JavaScript is also used for creating interactive web applications - not just tracking users. Really your attitude comes off unnecessarily aggressive.

rhizome 10y ago

Is it more aggressive than the uses to which JS is being put these days?

Gracana 10y ago

Obviously things like gdocs need JavaScript, but blogs and news sites and forums sure don't.

jdormit 10y ago
I think it depends on what the JavaScript is used for. I agree that blogs and news site should be static, but forums - and in general, sites with a high degree of user interactivity - can see significant UX improvements with some JavaScript, for things like asynchronous loading, changing the UI without reloading the page, and even nice animations (although many of those can be done in CSS these days). However, graceful degradation is very important - disabliing JavaScript on these sites shouldn't break them, merely impact the UX. [Edit] "blogs and news sites should be static" -> this should read "blogs and news sites don't need JavaScript"
- Gracana 10y ago
  Agreed, enhancements are good (and often nice on a modern devices with all the bells and whistles enabled), so long as it degrades nicely.

CaptSpify 10y ago

There are exceptions where JS is needed. They are exceptions though. A vast majority of the sites I see now are web-pages that think they need to be SPAs. Sorry, sucks to be them, but if they didn't mis-design, I wouldn't mis-interpret their intentions.

gkya 10y ago

How can one know that first time viewing a webpage? I just enable some particular websites to run JS because I know that they are indeed interactive web applications that I want to (read: have been constrained to) use. Also, most interactive web applications can stay just as interactive even though they were to reduce the amount of JS and CSS libs, fonts, images, icons, videos and other stuff that they thoughtlessly pull in. I disabled fonts loading on webpages and all the search boxes are now an "fl" ligature for me, though many times I see that it's not more cryptic then before I disabled fonts, because weird icons some people invented are just as meaningless to me as random letters. I've gotten used to the fact that an identity sign is for a meny, but every other day someone invents another one that now I can't click anything without fear and uncertainty, as most of the time no-one bothers to put a tooltip or a litte label.