4 ms·
IME, it really depends on the website. If the user normally has Javascript disabled, then suddenly enables it on a graphical browser while visiting a news webs
by 3xblah 7y ago
IME, it really depends on the website. If the user normally has Javascript disabled, then suddenly enables it on a graphical browser while visiting a news website, look out.
Dumpster fire indeed. The user's computer resources are quickly usurped and things slow to a crawl. Users have been trained to be patient I guess, waiting for websites to "load".
Interestingly, I find that many egregiously ad/tracker-laden websites actually "work" well enough without Javascript, meaning the content is readable, sometimes even the images are displayed. For these websites, it does not appear that they are purposely designed to be "unusable" without Javascript enabled. As a text-only browser user, I sometimes perceive some websites "do not work" with Javascript enabled. Trying to view them with the "recommended browser" with Javascript enabled makes the computer so unbearably slow and janky that I give up and go back to turning Javascript off.
- autoexec 7y ago> many egregiously ad/tracker-laden websites actually "work" well enough without Javascript, meaning the content is readable, sometimes even the images are displayed. Websites that can't manage to load an image without javascript are a pet peeve of mine and they are everywhere. News sites are the worst, but even popular images hosts where displaying images is their entire job fail miserably. At the very least sites that can't load the image should show a direct link to the image but they never do. I'd happily welcome back all the marquee tags and "under construction" banners of the past if we could take web development back to the point where we didn't need several massive JavaScript libraries hosted across multiple domains to do the most task like display an image.