4 ms·

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

by dmead 8y ago

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

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

by 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