4 ms·

A suggestion: Given the recent news that Chrome will soon prevent ad blocking and given ads can run untrusted JavaScript, the only sane choice is to disable Ja

by na85 7y ago

A suggestion: Given the recent news that Chrome will soon prevent ad blocking and given ads can run untrusted JavaScript, the only sane choice is to disable JavaScript in the browser. I suggest that you change the "enabled" colour to red, to highlight the user's risky behavior.

enz 7y ago
Why not switch to another browser or implement a DNS-level blocking?
mileycyrusXOXO 7y ago
Thanks for the feedback, I've been debating this. In my earliest version I had the colors as you suggested but later decided that most users would expect it the other way. I'm open to changing it, but I'll need to think about it.
- ronilan 7y ago
  You made the right choice. “Is javascript enabled?” is a true/false question. Just like with a traffic light which answers the question “may I proceed?”, green commonly stands for true and red for false. If you make isjavascriptdisabled.com than colors should be switched.
SquareWheel 7y ago
>Given the recent news that Chrome will soon prevent ad blocking I think you misinterpreted a headline. Chrome is not preventing ad blocking. Chrome is changing the content blocking APIs to match Safari's. Ad blockers will of course still exist. Also, red as a color for "yes, enabled" is completely contrary to user expectation.
userbinator 7y ago
I've seen plenty of "you have JS disabled, please enable it for a better experience" warnings[1], but I wonder how many have a "you have JS enabled, please disable it for a better experience" warning; obviously, I would not see them, but perhaps others here might've come across such before. [1] I once listened to one and turned JS on for a try, only to be bombarded with a bunch of ads, hover-overs, something that kept following the cursor, and other disturbing crap. That was definitely a lesson I won't repeat...

4 ms·

A suggestion: Given the recent news that Chrome will soon prevent ad blocking and given ads can run untrusted JavaScript, the only sane choice is to disable Ja

by na85 7y ago

enz 7y ago
Why not switch to another browser or implement a DNS-level blocking?
mileycyrusXOXO 7y ago
Thanks for the feedback, I've been debating this. In my earliest version I had the colors as you suggested but later decided that most users would expect it the other way. I'm open to changing it, but I'll need to think about it.
- ronilan 7y ago
  You made the right choice. “Is javascript enabled?” is a true/false question. Just like with a traffic light which answers the question “may I proceed?”, green commonly stands for true and red for false. If you make isjavascriptdisabled.com than colors should be switched.
SquareWheel 7y ago
>Given the recent news that Chrome will soon prevent ad blocking I think you misinterpreted a headline. Chrome is not preventing ad blocking. Chrome is changing the content blocking APIs to match Safari's. Ad blockers will of course still exist. Also, red as a color for "yes, enabled" is completely contrary to user expectation.
userbinator 7y ago
I've seen plenty of "you have JS disabled, please enable it for a better experience" warnings[1], but I wonder how many have a "you have JS enabled, please disable it for a better experience" warning; obviously, I would not see them, but perhaps others here might've come across such before. [1] I once listened to one and turned JS on for a try, only to be bombarded with a bunch of ads, hover-overs, something that kept following the cursor, and other disturbing crap. That was definitely a lesson I won't repeat...