5 ms·

"We're sorry but dead man tracker doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue." Yeah fine, but perhaps some explanation of w

"We're sorry but dead man tracker doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue." Yeah fine, but perhaps some explanation of what I would be seeing if I did that would be appreciated. If you want me to enable Javascript, you should at least tell me what you're going to do with that. If you make a web site with functionality that requires Javascript, and there's no other way, that's fine. But you should still leave the bits that don't need Javascript up, so we can see what we are missing.

cdelsolar 7y ago
No, you luddite, no one uses the internet anymore without Javascript.
- toss1 7y ago
  But plenty of people use NoScript[1,2] and similar configurable blockers When you open a new website, only the previously whitelisted JS sources are enabled, and you can individually check out the initially disabled sites to see if you want to trust it to run on your machine. So, yes, having some default information about the code required to view the basic site would definitely be helpful, and help build trust. [1] https://github.com/hackademix/noscript https://github.com/hackademix/noscript [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript#ClearClick_(anti-clickjacking) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript#ClearClick_(anti-clic...
deif 7y ago
Good advice, I'll change that so it explains that I don't use any form of tracking. It's a shame most SPA sites abuse JS to the point that users feel the need to disable it by default.
- mnw21cam 7y ago
  I mean, this is a good example of a web site that I'm likely to be interested in seeing, but unlikely to need to use the functionality of. It's a great idea for web sites like this to make it look generally the same (if at all possible, or have an explanation of what it would look like), but not work (with a brief message about why) when Javascript is turned off. I think that's possibly more important than claiming that you won't do any tracking. You sound like a trustworthy person, I'm sure, but of course the less reputable web sites could well claim they don't do any tracking, but then do tracking. The first paragraph is a way to say "This is what you get when you switch Javascript on", and the second is "This is what you don't get when you switch Javascript on". Different messages. The first is verifiable useful information. The second is harder to verify. And yes, I agree it is tragic that the world has reached this point.
  - redis_mlc 7y ago
    mnw21cam: you're not representative of most users. In fact, I've never seen a "Javascript apology" on any website.
cassiet 7y ago
This isn’t mine, but the number of my users with js turned off isn’t worth the effort. You guys make a lot of noise, but not a lot of traffic.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  This. Without JS the base expectation should be a blank page. Not even an error message.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    That's a bizarrely vindictive attitude.
    - alkonaut 7y ago
      I’m not saying it should be that way on purpose, I’m saying that’s what you can expect. No one tests for people using terminal browsers or IE4. Noscript users are in the same niche. I understand why you’d disable JavaScript but I don’t understand how people expect those who make web apps to cater for that.
      - catalogia 7y ago
        "Expect" is a word that has different meanings depending on the context: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/expect https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/expect > To predict or believe that something will happen In this sense, I do not expect most websites to work without javascript. > To consider obligatory or required. In this sense, I do expect most websites to work without javascript. At the very least, for accessibility reasons.
        cassiet 7y ago
        You can expect all you want, I expect you’ll be disappointed. The goal to keep the web in that languid state is of the same ilk of the buggy whip. It’ll have archaic use cases, but the numbers won’t make sense for a lot of if not most future endeavours.

cdelsolar 7y ago

No, you luddite, no one uses the internet anymore without Javascript.

toss1 7y ago
But plenty of people use NoScript[1,2] and similar configurable blockers When you open a new website, only the previously whitelisted JS sources are enabled, and you can individually check out the initially disabled sites to see if you want to trust it to run on your machine. So, yes, having some default information about the code required to view the basic site would definitely be helpful, and help build trust. [1] https://github.com/hackademix/noscript https://github.com/hackademix/noscript [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript#ClearClick_(anti-clickjacking) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript#ClearClick_(anti-clic...

deif 7y ago

Good advice, I'll change that so it explains that I don't use any form of tracking. It's a shame most SPA sites abuse JS to the point that users feel the need to disable it by default.

mnw21cam 7y ago
I mean, this is a good example of a web site that I'm likely to be interested in seeing, but unlikely to need to use the functionality of. It's a great idea for web sites like this to make it look generally the same (if at all possible, or have an explanation of what it would look like), but not work (with a brief message about why) when Javascript is turned off. I think that's possibly more important than claiming that you won't do any tracking. You sound like a trustworthy person, I'm sure, but of course the less reputable web sites could well claim they don't do any tracking, but then do tracking. The first paragraph is a way to say "This is what you get when you switch Javascript on", and the second is "This is what you don't get when you switch Javascript on". Different messages. The first is verifiable useful information. The second is harder to verify. And yes, I agree it is tragic that the world has reached this point.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  mnw21cam: you're not representative of most users. In fact, I've never seen a "Javascript apology" on any website.

cassiet 7y ago

This isn’t mine, but the number of my users with js turned off isn’t worth the effort. You guys make a lot of noise, but not a lot of traffic.

alkonaut 7y ago
This. Without JS the base expectation should be a blank page. Not even an error message.
- catalogia 7y ago
  That's a bizarrely vindictive attitude.
  - alkonaut 7y ago
    I’m not saying it should be that way on purpose, I’m saying that’s what you can expect. No one tests for people using terminal browsers or IE4. Noscript users are in the same niche. I understand why you’d disable JavaScript but I don’t understand how people expect those who make web apps to cater for that.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      "Expect" is a word that has different meanings depending on the context: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/expect https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/expect > To predict or believe that something will happen In this sense, I do not expect most websites to work without javascript. > To consider obligatory or required. In this sense, I do expect most websites to work without javascript. At the very least, for accessibility reasons.
      - cassiet 7y ago
        You can expect all you want, I expect you’ll be disappointed. The goal to keep the web in that languid state is of the same ilk of the buggy whip. It’ll have archaic use cases, but the numbers won’t make sense for a lot of if not most future endeavours.