4 ms·

When we get to critical mass? More like "if". I doubt the majority (crushing majority even) of active web browsers will ever get to that length. Especially nosc

by Aoyagi 10y ago

When we get to critical mass? More like "if". I doubt the majority (crushing majority even) of active web browsers will ever get to that length. Especially noscript, which makes some sites completely useless.

coldpie 10y ago
It makes many more completely usable. Floating headers and footers? Dead. Survey pop-ups? Dead. Pop-ups begging for your email address? Dead. Dumb fading in text and images? Dead. Needless whiz-bang animations? Dead. Site load times? Dramatically reduced. Browsing the web with NoScript is far more pleasant, even if I have to sometimes open a menu to enable a couple domains to make a poorly developed website usable. I'd highly recommend it to anyone even remotely technical.
- pc86 10y ago
  TIL utilizing the most widely available programming language in the world makes a website "poorly developed."
  - coldpie 10y ago
    If your website requires active content in order to display plaintext, images and navigation, then yes, it is poorly developed. You failed to use the right tool for the job.
    - pc86 10y ago
      Navigation is typically comprised of text and/or images. Some websites need more than text or images.
      - zzzcpan 10y ago
        Very few websites, maybe 1 out of 100, most offenders are just rendering content in the browser for some reason. Although even bigger offenders are not individuals, but companies, outright blocking access to client's websites without javascript. So far it's mostly Cloudflare, I think most people using the web without javascript hate them the most, hopefully the trend won't continue.
        OJFord 10y ago
        Cloudflare blocks access to sites behind it to users with JS enabled? Even if there's no JS on the site? 1. Is there anything the site owner can do to turn that off? 2. Is it because they inject some kind of DDoS prevention/tracking thing? This suggests crawlers load JS, which I wouldn't have necessarily assumed.
        throwaway2048 10y ago
        cloudflare can whitelist crawlers like google. The fact it blocks other automatic robots is more of a feature than a flaw.
        OJFord 10y ago
        Requiring visitors to have JS enabled isn't (a very good) feature.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - digler999 10y ago
    abusing the most widely available language to destroy the UX makes a website poorly developed.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    The worst offender I have seen in this respect is blog sites that won't even load static text without scripts enabled. The complaint isn't with the scripting language, but with the blatantly unnecessary use of it. One of the principles of human-friendly design is graceful degradation. For instance, you might design a museum for people that can walk. But some visitors might not be able to walk, so for them you install ramps and elevators when the stairs are not usable. At the very minimum level, where someone is manually typing in HTTP requests, over a direct TCP connection to port 80 of your site, you should be returning something that can be read. Some people (or bots) may be fetching your site with curl or wget or links. Some people may be using screen readers. Some people may need machine assistance with pointer movement or scrolling. Some people may have extremely limited bandwidth, and won't automatically download images or frame contents. If you can't degrade gracefully, your website is "poorly developed". So if you are utterly reliant on scripting to display anything at all, that certainly qualifies.
  - coin 10y ago
    Why do I need to run executable code in order to read static content?
- Jailout2000 10y ago
  I'd love to use NoScript, but even being as technical as I am, the UI/UX for it makes it completely unusable for me. I'm not a Firefox primary user, I primarily am on Chromium Opera these days. The equivalent of NoScript is an extension called NoScript Suite Lite: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/no-script-suite-lite/ahnanjpbkghcdgmlchbcfoiefnifjeni https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/no-script-suite-li...
a_imho 10y ago
Well, afaik Opera has content blocking by default, Firefox should do the same. MS and Apple could potentially add it.

by Aoyagi 10y ago

coldpie 10y ago

It makes many more completely usable. Floating headers and footers? Dead. Survey pop-ups? Dead. Pop-ups begging for your email address? Dead. Dumb fading in text and images? Dead. Needless whiz-bang animations? Dead. Site load times? Dramatically reduced. Browsing the web with NoScript is far more pleasant, even if I have to sometimes open a menu to enable a couple domains to make a poorly developed website usable. I'd highly recommend it to anyone even remotely technical.

pc86 10y ago
TIL utilizing the most widely available programming language in the world makes a website "poorly developed."
- coldpie 10y ago
  If your website requires active content in order to display plaintext, images and navigation, then yes, it is poorly developed. You failed to use the right tool for the job.
  - pc86 10y ago
    Navigation is typically comprised of text and/or images. Some websites need more than text or images.
    - zzzcpan 10y ago
      Very few websites, maybe 1 out of 100, most offenders are just rendering content in the browser for some reason. Although even bigger offenders are not individuals, but companies, outright blocking access to client's websites without javascript. So far it's mostly Cloudflare, I think most people using the web without javascript hate them the most, hopefully the trend won't continue.
      - OJFord 10y ago
        Cloudflare blocks access to sites behind it to users with JS enabled? Even if there's no JS on the site? 1. Is there anything the site owner can do to turn that off? 2. Is it because they inject some kind of DDoS prevention/tracking thing? This suggests crawlers load JS, which I wouldn't have necessarily assumed.
        throwaway2048 10y ago
        cloudflare can whitelist crawlers like google. The fact it blocks other automatic robots is more of a feature than a flaw.
        OJFord 10y ago
        Requiring visitors to have JS enabled isn't (a very good) feature.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- digler999 10y ago
  abusing the most widely available language to destroy the UX makes a website poorly developed.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  The worst offender I have seen in this respect is blog sites that won't even load static text without scripts enabled. The complaint isn't with the scripting language, but with the blatantly unnecessary use of it. One of the principles of human-friendly design is graceful degradation. For instance, you might design a museum for people that can walk. But some visitors might not be able to walk, so for them you install ramps and elevators when the stairs are not usable. At the very minimum level, where someone is manually typing in HTTP requests, over a direct TCP connection to port 80 of your site, you should be returning something that can be read. Some people (or bots) may be fetching your site with curl or wget or links. Some people may be using screen readers. Some people may need machine assistance with pointer movement or scrolling. Some people may have extremely limited bandwidth, and won't automatically download images or frame contents. If you can't degrade gracefully, your website is "poorly developed". So if you are utterly reliant on scripting to display anything at all, that certainly qualifies.
- coin 10y ago
  Why do I need to run executable code in order to read static content?
Jailout2000 10y ago
I'd love to use NoScript, but even being as technical as I am, the UI/UX for it makes it completely unusable for me. I'm not a Firefox primary user, I primarily am on Chromium Opera these days. The equivalent of NoScript is an extension called NoScript Suite Lite: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/no-script-suite-lite/ahnanjpbkghcdgmlchbcfoiefnifjeni https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/no-script-suite-li...

a_imho 10y ago

Well, afaik Opera has content blocking by default, Firefox should do the same. MS and Apple could potentially add it.