4 ms·
Warning.js: the opposite of noscript warnings
- danschumann 9y agoI hate this, because I love javascript, but it did make me laugh.
- erikrothoff 9y agoWhile an interesting idea, it feels like an uphill battle with a broken vehicle. The tone is a bit unfortunate and off-putting.
- 0x4a42 9y ago100 lines of code for this is not "tiny": <script>alert('You are using JavaScript!')</script>
- vog 9y agoI don't get it, either. Even the include is longer that directly writing a plain alert: <script type="text/javascript" src="warning.js" charset="utf-8"></script> versus: <script>alert('You forgot to disable JavaScript!')</script> To be fair, the following would be sufficient, but for some strange reasons the project recommends the long version: <script src="warning.js"></script>
- mstef 9y agothat would be less funny and lack the educational aspect.
- thomascgalvin 9y agoSo the demo site [1] shows this warning: > We are psyched to tell you, NOT on this site, here you don't need no stinking JavaScript!!!!1! Which, if you simply include the script as directed in the "Installation & Usage" section, can't even be customized. This is hideously unprofessional, and I would immediately bounce off of any site that included it. [1] https://asciimoo.github.io/warning.js/ https://asciimoo.github.io/warning.js/
- fluxsauce 9y ago> I hate JavaScript so much that I'm going to include JavaScript complaining about you running my JavaScript. Or just don't include any JavaScript.
- nukeop 9y agouMatrix is a superior alternative to noscript and should be recommended instead. It allows for a far greater amount of control over displayed and loaded content than noscript, and with a more intuitive UI.