5 ms·

If you liked the effect of installing an adblocker give disabling Javascript a try. (You can selectively whitelist a small number of websites). Did this a coup

by dman 8y ago

If you liked the effect of installing an adblocker give disabling Javascript a try. (You can selectively whitelist a small number of websites). Did this a couple of years back and the difference is astounding.

dmead 8y ago
Is there a list somewhere of what websites actually work without JavaScript enabled?
- wlll 8y ago
  I reckon that the number of websites I regularly visit is small enough that whitelisting them over a few days will get most of them. HN, Reddit (for the articles), a few work sites, a couple of news sites. Everything else I'll just see how it pans out. It will be an interesting experiment.
  - madez 8y ago
    I use Reddit and HN without JavaScript. Most sites work just fine or with minor annoyance, which the websites in many cases could fix if they wanted.
- koolba 8y ago
  Sadly it's a shrinking list and as sites replace static content with things like React it's shrinking even faster. Good: HN works well and handles the downgrade gracefully (ex: upvoting becomes a POST rather than AJAX). Bad: The original Reddit site works ok but the new React based one one fails miserably as it shows a loading screen that never changes.
  - StellarTabi 8y ago
    React is actually capable of sever side rendering, in fact one of the Reddit announcements specified that React's SSR was a key factor in choosing it. I'm curious why they're not using it? The new site is still in beta though.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Probably because React having this capability was enough to silence the opposition, without actually committing to using said capability. (Also, they probably save money on electricity by externalizing more and more processing to users.)
  - madez 8y ago
    The new reddit interface is horrible without JavaScript. One can get back the good one under old.reddit.com
    - oldcynic 8y ago
      The new reddit interface is horrible period. Even with JavaScript on.
  - tannhaeuser 8y ago
    The new Reddit React site hijacks right-click so you can't even open your responses/user page in a separate tab. Fail. This is how Slashdot.org lost their user base. Who in their right mind would use React for a content-based site? But reddit seems to know they suck at websites: you can still access https://old.reddit.com/r/<whatever> https://old.reddit.com/r/<whatever> and even https://old.reddit.com/r/<whatever>/.compact https://old.reddit.com/r/<whatever>/.compact for the old site and the old old site.
    - p49k 8y ago
      > Who in their right mind would use React for a content-based site? People who are also writing content-based apps and want to write once but still obtain native speeds on mobile? The lack of right-click functionality is just bad design, not React's fault.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        > obtain native speeds on mobile With browsers and heavy JavaScript frameworks? That's an oxymoron right there. The truth is, people/organizations doing this simply put other concerns above user experience and friendliness.
        SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        "Native speeds" in this case meaning "needlessly slow". But at least it's consistently slow across devices!
      - tannhaeuser 8y ago
        Are you talking about Reactive Native? Sounds good on paper, but it's just as fast or slow as a browser because it is a browser, and is far from creating a native app experience on either iOS or Android because it tries to do animation on a JavaScript-style single-threaded execution model among other things. What content-based apps do you have in mind? The Reddit app nobody is using because it doesn't add value to the web site, and which Reddit keeps nagging about in the most annoying way possible (thereby signaling users to never ever install it)? React is fine for browser-based line-of-business (and I guess also collaboration) apps; for content, not so much because you have to go through hoops to parse content into React's vdom [1]. [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50420248/how-to-parse-a-string-containing-html-to-react-components/50526629#50526629 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50420248/how-to-parse-a-...
  - JoshMnem 8y ago
    When old reddit goes away, there will still be this: https://github.com/michael-lazar/rtv https://github.com/michael-lazar/rtv I think there needs to be a movement to bring the WWW back to basic, readable, low-JS, animation-free, content-based sites.
- smoe 8y ago
  If have had javascript disabled for about four years now, and it was among the best quality of life decisions I ever made in terms of web browsing. I don't think there is a list, but I'd say it heavily depends on your browsing behaviour. In my case the vast majority of web sites that I access randomly (mostly trough some feed or aggregator) are text based and actually more pleasant to use without js: Faster, no jumping around of content, no obnoxious subscribe modals, almost zero ads, etc. If it doesn't work without js, I usually just close the tab. I hold the view, that if something is important enough for me to care, it will reach me in some form or the other eventually. But if you are mostly about multi media content, checking out tech demos or similar, you are going to have a bad time. You can use the "Quick JS switcher" plugin to easily enable js for a page https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/quick-js-switcher/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/quick-js-swit... https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/quick-javascript-switcher/geddoclleiomckbhadiaipdggiiccfje?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/quick-javascript-s... I'm quite lenient in white listing, because for me personally disabling js is mostly about performance. If I'm interested enough in a web sites offering and see the utility of it requiring js, I'm also willing to wait a little. But I'm not patient by default
wlll 8y ago
That's a great idea, I'll give that a go!
danieldk 8y ago
I good compromise is uMatrix, which by default only allows first-party JavaScript and cookies and makes it easy to quickly enable JavaScript/XDR/cookies when necessary using a point and click matrix: https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix
- amnah 8y ago
  Is uMatrix something you use instead of uBlock, or in addition to? Also is there a guide on how to use it somewhere
  - m-localhost 8y ago
    I use both, but sometimes it's a bit a pain in the ass with capchas and and embedded iframes etc. A lot of trial and error which scripts are needed. But it's great to know most of the crap, including cookie/consent banners are blocked.
    - michaelbuckbee 8y ago
      Does this not blow/up or block most logins for apps?
      - tazard 8y ago
        The first time I log into a website I often need to do a few rounds of "allow this script; refresh; allow this script; refresh" to get captcha/cdns working. But then I save for that site and don't think about it again. It can be a bit of a pain sometimes, but I find it interesting having to acknowledge where different sites pull resources from.
  - 18pfsmt 8y ago
    The author is the same as uBlock Origin; here is the repo: https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix From the wiki page, there are many useful FAQ/ guides/ docs. Specifically, there is a link to a decent guide: http://adamantine.me/index.php/2015/11/18/umatrix-desperately-needed-guide/ http://adamantine.me/index.php/2015/11/18/umatrix-desperatel... edit: using both is redundant
cm2187 8y ago
I have been doing that for a long time but with the use of javascript framework & SPA for pretty much any website, including the least appropriate applications like blogs, I kind of had to capitulate in the name of convenience.
jlarocco 8y ago
I'd be willing to bet your "small number" of white listed websites is actually a lot more than you think. Turning off Javascript breaks a ton of sites, IME. Same thing with cookies. On a side note, web developers have gotten really lazy at feature checking. In the IE days they'd at least have a banner saying their page wasn't going to work because it required IE or Netscape. Browsing with cookies turned off nowadays, I hit one or two sites a day that won't even display and then often get stuck in infinite redirect loop. Even white listing sites to use cookies is a PITA. Outlook for Office65, for example, requires white listing cookies from 3 or 4 domains, and due to the way it redirects, I had to dig around in Chrome's page inspector to even find out what those domains are. And of course the page itself gives no indication of why it's not loading, it just flashes between empty pages forever.
- ayosec 8y ago
  > I'd be willing to bet your "small number" of white listed websites is actually a lot more than you think. Turning off Javascript breaks a ton of sites, IME. My experience is the opposite. I used NoScript for almost 8 years, and then switched to uMatrix one year ago. I don't need to enable JavaScript in most sites. And, if I need it, only enable some parts of the page. Most websites are much faster with this.
- chubot 8y ago
  Disabling JavaScript actually works great on news sites as far as I remember. It used to be that disabling JS rendered web pages illegible. But good CSS changed that. So now you can read sites perfectly fine with JS. You can't interact, but you can read. EDIT: Wow I just tried disabling JS on nytimes.com and it's INCREDIBLE. Reallly, try it. In Chrome I used the pattern [*.]nytimes.com. Not sure what that syntax is.
- anotherevan 8y ago
  I've found the Cookie AutoDelete browser add-on works really well for dealing with cookies. Firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autode... Chrome https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cookie-autodelete/fhcgjolkccmbidfldomjliifgaodjagh https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cookie-autodelete/...
zzzzzzzza 8y ago
if that's too extreme try just disabling images.

by dman 8y ago

dmead 8y ago

Is there a list somewhere of what websites actually work without JavaScript enabled?

wlll 8y ago
I reckon that the number of websites I regularly visit is small enough that whitelisting them over a few days will get most of them. HN, Reddit (for the articles), a few work sites, a couple of news sites. Everything else I'll just see how it pans out. It will be an interesting experiment.
- madez 8y ago
  I use Reddit and HN without JavaScript. Most sites work just fine or with minor annoyance, which the websites in many cases could fix if they wanted.
koolba 8y ago
Sadly it's a shrinking list and as sites replace static content with things like React it's shrinking even faster. Good: HN works well and handles the downgrade gracefully (ex: upvoting becomes a POST rather than AJAX). Bad: The original Reddit site works ok but the new React based one one fails miserably as it shows a loading screen that never changes.
- StellarTabi 8y ago
  React is actually capable of sever side rendering, in fact one of the Reddit announcements specified that React's SSR was a key factor in choosing it. I'm curious why they're not using it? The new site is still in beta though.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Probably because React having this capability was enough to silence the opposition, without actually committing to using said capability. (Also, they probably save money on electricity by externalizing more and more processing to users.)
- madez 8y ago
  The new reddit interface is horrible without JavaScript. One can get back the good one under old.reddit.com
  - oldcynic 8y ago
    The new reddit interface is horrible period. Even with JavaScript on.
- tannhaeuser 8y ago
  The new Reddit React site hijacks right-click so you can't even open your responses/user page in a separate tab. Fail. This is how Slashdot.org lost their user base. Who in their right mind would use React for a content-based site? But reddit seems to know they suck at websites: you can still access https://old.reddit.com/r/<whatever> https://old.reddit.com/r/<whatever> and even https://old.reddit.com/r/<whatever>/.compact https://old.reddit.com/r/<whatever>/.compact for the old site and the old old site.
  - p49k 8y ago
    > Who in their right mind would use React for a content-based site? People who are also writing content-based apps and want to write once but still obtain native speeds on mobile? The lack of right-click functionality is just bad design, not React's fault.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      > obtain native speeds on mobile With browsers and heavy JavaScript frameworks? That's an oxymoron right there. The truth is, people/organizations doing this simply put other concerns above user experience and friendliness.
      - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        "Native speeds" in this case meaning "needlessly slow". But at least it's consistently slow across devices!
    - tannhaeuser 8y ago
      Are you talking about Reactive Native? Sounds good on paper, but it's just as fast or slow as a browser because it is a browser, and is far from creating a native app experience on either iOS or Android because it tries to do animation on a JavaScript-style single-threaded execution model among other things. What content-based apps do you have in mind? The Reddit app nobody is using because it doesn't add value to the web site, and which Reddit keeps nagging about in the most annoying way possible (thereby signaling users to never ever install it)? React is fine for browser-based line-of-business (and I guess also collaboration) apps; for content, not so much because you have to go through hoops to parse content into React's vdom [1]. [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50420248/how-to-parse-a-string-containing-html-to-react-components/50526629#50526629 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50420248/how-to-parse-a-...
- JoshMnem 8y ago
  When old reddit goes away, there will still be this: https://github.com/michael-lazar/rtv https://github.com/michael-lazar/rtv I think there needs to be a movement to bring the WWW back to basic, readable, low-JS, animation-free, content-based sites.
smoe 8y ago
If have had javascript disabled for about four years now, and it was among the best quality of life decisions I ever made in terms of web browsing. I don't think there is a list, but I'd say it heavily depends on your browsing behaviour. In my case the vast majority of web sites that I access randomly (mostly trough some feed or aggregator) are text based and actually more pleasant to use without js: Faster, no jumping around of content, no obnoxious subscribe modals, almost zero ads, etc. If it doesn't work without js, I usually just close the tab. I hold the view, that if something is important enough for me to care, it will reach me in some form or the other eventually. But if you are mostly about multi media content, checking out tech demos or similar, you are going to have a bad time. You can use the "Quick JS switcher" plugin to easily enable js for a page https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/quick-js-switcher/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/quick-js-swit... https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/quick-javascript-switcher/geddoclleiomckbhadiaipdggiiccfje?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/quick-javascript-s... I'm quite lenient in white listing, because for me personally disabling js is mostly about performance. If I'm interested enough in a web sites offering and see the utility of it requiring js, I'm also willing to wait a little. But I'm not patient by default

wlll 8y ago

That's a great idea, I'll give that a go!

danieldk 8y ago

I good compromise is uMatrix, which by default only allows first-party JavaScript and cookies and makes it easy to quickly enable JavaScript/XDR/cookies when necessary using a point and click matrix: https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix

amnah 8y ago
Is uMatrix something you use instead of uBlock, or in addition to? Also is there a guide on how to use it somewhere
- m-localhost 8y ago
  I use both, but sometimes it's a bit a pain in the ass with capchas and and embedded iframes etc. A lot of trial and error which scripts are needed. But it's great to know most of the crap, including cookie/consent banners are blocked.
  - michaelbuckbee 8y ago
    Does this not blow/up or block most logins for apps?
    - tazard 8y ago
      The first time I log into a website I often need to do a few rounds of "allow this script; refresh; allow this script; refresh" to get captcha/cdns working. But then I save for that site and don't think about it again. It can be a bit of a pain sometimes, but I find it interesting having to acknowledge where different sites pull resources from.
- 18pfsmt 8y ago
  The author is the same as uBlock Origin; here is the repo: https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix From the wiki page, there are many useful FAQ/ guides/ docs. Specifically, there is a link to a decent guide: http://adamantine.me/index.php/2015/11/18/umatrix-desperately-needed-guide/ http://adamantine.me/index.php/2015/11/18/umatrix-desperatel... edit: using both is redundant

cm2187 8y ago

I have been doing that for a long time but with the use of javascript framework & SPA for pretty much any website, including the least appropriate applications like blogs, I kind of had to capitulate in the name of convenience.

jlarocco 8y ago

I'd be willing to bet your "small number" of white listed websites is actually a lot more than you think. Turning off Javascript breaks a ton of sites, IME. Same thing with cookies. On a side note, web developers have gotten really lazy at feature checking. In the IE days they'd at least have a banner saying their page wasn't going to work because it required IE or Netscape. Browsing with cookies turned off nowadays, I hit one or two sites a day that won't even display and then often get stuck in infinite redirect loop. Even white listing sites to use cookies is a PITA. Outlook for Office65, for example, requires white listing cookies from 3 or 4 domains, and due to the way it redirects, I had to dig around in Chrome's page inspector to even find out what those domains are. And of course the page itself gives no indication of why it's not loading, it just flashes between empty pages forever.

ayosec 8y ago
> I'd be willing to bet your "small number" of white listed websites is actually a lot more than you think. Turning off Javascript breaks a ton of sites, IME. My experience is the opposite. I used NoScript for almost 8 years, and then switched to uMatrix one year ago. I don't need to enable JavaScript in most sites. And, if I need it, only enable some parts of the page. Most websites are much faster with this.
chubot 8y ago
Disabling JavaScript actually works great on news sites as far as I remember. It used to be that disabling JS rendered web pages illegible. But good CSS changed that. So now you can read sites perfectly fine with JS. You can't interact, but you can read. EDIT: Wow I just tried disabling JS on nytimes.com and it's INCREDIBLE. Reallly, try it. In Chrome I used the pattern [*.]nytimes.com. Not sure what that syntax is.
anotherevan 8y ago
I've found the Cookie AutoDelete browser add-on works really well for dealing with cookies. Firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autode... Chrome https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cookie-autodelete/fhcgjolkccmbidfldomjliifgaodjagh https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cookie-autodelete/...

zzzzzzzza 8y ago

if that's too extreme try just disabling images.