3 ms·
OT: Does anyone know why NYT makes the images not visible to noJS users? The page is otherwise laid out OK, and the image placeholders seem to be a reasonable s
by forgotmypw 8y ago
OT: Does anyone know why NYT makes the images not visible to noJS users? The page is otherwise laid out OK, and the image placeholders seem to be a reasonable size, but blank... What is the idea behind this architecture? Optimization of some kind? Bot lockout? Just ignorance/incompetence?
- iwalton3 8y agoA lot of news websites seem to be lazy-loading images when they are scrolled into view. This is presumably to save bandwidth, but it may also encourage people to execute unwanted JavaScript.
- darepublic 8y agoso in otherwords, in the sensationalist rabble rousing manner of NYT, we should have an article about how nefarious newspaper companies applied their marketing wizardry to manipulate people into being tracked by ads
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoWell it's your personal responsibility to protect yourself with NoScript or Greasemonkey.
- forgotmypw 8y agoWhose personal responsibility is it to protect the un-savvy?
- darepublic 8y agoThe point is that these same newspapers are aggressively promoting the idea that personal responsibility is not in the hands of the individual.
- frosted-flakes 8y agoDisabling JavaScript also doesn't allow the paywall to kick in, so there is no point in optimising for no JS browsing.
- VirtualAirwaves 8y agoWell, they have a right to charge for their product.
- NullPrefix 8y agoOnly because the paywall is written in JS.