3 ms·

If you've got JS turned off, isn't lack of image previews about the smallest issue you'll face?

zeveb 9y ago
Not really; it's actually one of the biggest ones. There are several categories of sites which fail due to reliance on JavaScript: - Sites which should work perfectly but don't work at all (e.g. Blogger). These are so annoying because serving text & images is exactly what the web is good at, and requiring JavaScript to do it is just abusive and borderline evil. - Sites which work perfectly fine, except that all the images are blurry, low-res placeholders. These are so annoying because they're actually serving images. Their developers know how to do the right thing, but obstinately refuse to do so. - Sites where small things don't work. They are annoying, but at least one can read them. Ars Technica gets a special mention for the fact that its articles are perfectly readable but the comments are not. I chalk this up to incompetence and laziness. - Single page apps which really need to be single-page apps. They're annoying because they would almost certainly be better as native apps, but they really are doing something that the static web can't do.
- rhn_mk1 9y ago
  Ars Technica can be fixed with the following CSS loaded into Stylus: .comments-row { display: inherit; } Seeing that it's such a small change, it really makes me wonder why they don't already include it.
- city41 9y ago
  > They're annoying because they would almost certainly be better as native apps I definitely disagree. If something is truly an application and can also be done on the web, I vastly prefer that over native apps. Not having to worry about different OSes, different machines, updating, deployments, etc. Webapps have significant advantages over native here IMO.
rhn_mk1 9y ago
Disallowing JS is really only an issue when using "rich" web apps. For reading articles composed of just pictures and text on random websites, running code is not (shouldn't be) really necessary. In this light, lack of images is a big problem: the user is forced to choose between not seeing half the content or running untrusted code.
- robbrown451 9y ago
  I assume you'll still see the images, just not the previews.

Not really; it's actually one of the biggest ones. There are several categories of sites which fail due to reliance on JavaScript: - Sites which should work perfectly but don't work at all (e.g. Blogger). These are so annoying because serving text & images is exactly what the web is good at, and requiring JavaScript to do it is just abusive and borderline evil. - Sites which work perfectly fine, except that all the images are blurry, low-res placeholders. These are so annoying because they're actually serving images. Their developers know how to do the right thing, but obstinately refuse to do so. - Sites where small things don't work. They are annoying, but at least one can read them. Ars Technica gets a special mention for the fact that its articles are perfectly readable but the comments are not. I chalk this up to incompetence and laziness. - Single page apps which really need to be single-page apps. They're annoying because they would almost certainly be better as native apps, but they really are doing something that the static web can't do.

rhn_mk1 9y ago
Ars Technica can be fixed with the following CSS loaded into Stylus: .comments-row { display: inherit; } Seeing that it's such a small change, it really makes me wonder why they don't already include it.
city41 9y ago
> They're annoying because they would almost certainly be better as native apps I definitely disagree. If something is truly an application and can also be done on the web, I vastly prefer that over native apps. Not having to worry about different OSes, different machines, updating, deployments, etc. Webapps have significant advantages over native here IMO.

rhn_mk1 9y ago

Disallowing JS is really only an issue when using "rich" web apps. For reading articles composed of just pictures and text on random websites, running code is not (shouldn't be) really necessary. In this light, lack of images is a big problem: the user is forced to choose between not seeing half the content or running untrusted code.

robbrown451 9y ago
I assume you'll still see the images, just not the previews.