5 ms·

Not allowing JavaScript turns into a chore when you find out that websites break in non obvious ways. I do not want to manually enable/disable JavaScript when t

Not allowing JavaScript turns into a chore when you find out that websites break in non obvious ways. I do not want to manually enable/disable JavaScript when the browser is a means to an end for me.

pmoriarty 8y ago
I consider dealing with the consequences of hacked-in accounts or a hacked-in laptop to be the bigger chore.
narag 8y ago
I've used a few solutions: privoxy, noscript, uMatrix and now uBlock origin. The later was a little confusing when I started using it, but now I get it and love it. A very good thing is that most websites use external javascript to implement the most annoying "features" like asking for consent, tracking, autoplay and diverse pop-up junk. Also it includes the "cosmetic filtering" that allows me to block html elements by name, very useful for subscription requests. Only when I browse in other people's computer, I'm reminded how screwed the web really is.
TheChaplain 8y ago
It's only a chore at the start? Once I give a site permissions I make sure to save them, so on next visit it just works. The impact on amount of traffic and load speed is considerable IMO and well worth the pain at start.
jdc 8y ago
I'm surprised there's no presets to subscribe (like AdBlock) for uMatrix.
ori_b 8y ago
Yet another reason to do it -- so that bug reports about websites not working without Javascript are taken seriously, and fixed.
- lsh 8y ago
  ha! a typical response is "we thank you for taking the time to contact us and value your opinion. our website is best used with Google Chrome and javascript enabled. Do you have any other problem I can stonewall you about?" I've registered my fair share of complaints about javascript problems, nobody does anything ever. Except once when I complained a bug triggered epilepsy, that got their attention real quick.
- hrktb 8y ago
  On a previous job, we had a “be a one day support desk” mandatory training, but I took only months after I entered. One of the funny discoveries was supported platforms and setup bugs are filtered very fast and just flagged as such. The only monitoring was the up or down trends for that kind of complaints. It includes people on IE6, those using their fridge browser to open the site, or apps that showed the site under some broken in app browser. So people blocking javascript are just a drop in that global number, and if the number is mostly constant it just won’t matter what happens in it and reports won’t even get to the devs.
- SquareWheel 8y ago
  Or they'll continue to be ignored, because they're not bugs with the website.
  - ori_b 8y ago
    It's a bug with the website as long as users start looking for alternatives. That's why there needs to be a lot of advocacy.
zeveb 8y ago
That's why I'd like to suggest a three-phase solution: the first phase is advocating for using JavaScript for progressive enhancement only; the second phase is a JavaScript blocker; the third phase is using three-phase power to deliver mild electrical shocks to web developers who abuse JavaScript. Seriously, though, you're right — and every time I'm forced to enable a new JavaScript source in uMatrix, I'm angered at the site which requires it. In some cases, I just don't even bother using such sites — why buy something from someone who respects neither me nor the Web enough to provide a usable site without tons of JavaScript?

Not allowing JavaScript turns into a chore when you find out that websites break in non obvious ways. I do not want to manually enable/disable JavaScript when the browser is a means to an end for me.

pmoriarty 8y ago

I consider dealing with the consequences of hacked-in accounts or a hacked-in laptop to be the bigger chore.

narag 8y ago

I've used a few solutions: privoxy, noscript, uMatrix and now uBlock origin. The later was a little confusing when I started using it, but now I get it and love it. A very good thing is that most websites use external javascript to implement the most annoying "features" like asking for consent, tracking, autoplay and diverse pop-up junk. Also it includes the "cosmetic filtering" that allows me to block html elements by name, very useful for subscription requests. Only when I browse in other people's computer, I'm reminded how screwed the web really is.

TheChaplain 8y ago

It's only a chore at the start? Once I give a site permissions I make sure to save them, so on next visit it just works. The impact on amount of traffic and load speed is considerable IMO and well worth the pain at start.

jdc 8y ago

I'm surprised there's no presets to subscribe (like AdBlock) for uMatrix.

ori_b 8y ago

Yet another reason to do it -- so that bug reports about websites not working without Javascript are taken seriously, and fixed.

lsh 8y ago
ha! a typical response is "we thank you for taking the time to contact us and value your opinion. our website is best used with Google Chrome and javascript enabled. Do you have any other problem I can stonewall you about?" I've registered my fair share of complaints about javascript problems, nobody does anything ever. Except once when I complained a bug triggered epilepsy, that got their attention real quick.
hrktb 8y ago
On a previous job, we had a “be a one day support desk” mandatory training, but I took only months after I entered. One of the funny discoveries was supported platforms and setup bugs are filtered very fast and just flagged as such. The only monitoring was the up or down trends for that kind of complaints. It includes people on IE6, those using their fridge browser to open the site, or apps that showed the site under some broken in app browser. So people blocking javascript are just a drop in that global number, and if the number is mostly constant it just won’t matter what happens in it and reports won’t even get to the devs.
SquareWheel 8y ago
Or they'll continue to be ignored, because they're not bugs with the website.
- ori_b 8y ago
  It's a bug with the website as long as users start looking for alternatives. That's why there needs to be a lot of advocacy.

zeveb 8y ago

That's why I'd like to suggest a three-phase solution: the first phase is advocating for using JavaScript for progressive enhancement only; the second phase is a JavaScript blocker; the third phase is using three-phase power to deliver mild electrical shocks to web developers who abuse JavaScript. Seriously, though, you're right — and every time I'm forced to enable a new JavaScript source in uMatrix, I'm angered at the site which requires it. In some cases, I just don't even bother using such sites — why buy something from someone who respects neither me nor the Web enough to provide a usable site without tons of JavaScript?