7 ms·

Sorry about that. I honestly didn't think anyone browsed the web without javascript enabled. How common is that? We do offer a simple to use api that you could

Sorry about that. I honestly didn't think anyone browsed the web without javascript enabled. How common is that? We do offer a simple to use api that you could build on top of to shorten link. Also an extension that offers the ability to shorten a url in one click. API Docs: https://t.ly/docs/ https://t.ly/docs/ Extension: https://t.ly/extension https://t.ly/extension

Baeocystin 6y ago
>I honestly didn't think anyone browsed the web without javascript enabled. How common is that? Not the person you asked, but speaking for myself, all the time. I have a javascript toggle I use several times a day, and leave it set to off as much as I can.
- TimLeland 6y ago
  Interesting..How many sites work without javascript these days? Does google?
  - agreeablebut 6y ago
    Plenty, and you get used to either toggling or enable the specific scripts that need to run.
  - Baeocystin 6y ago
    More than you'd think, not as many as I'd hope. Easily 2/3rds of the ones I visit work, FWIW. Google works fine without javascript. Stunningly fast.
    - oauea 6y ago
      > Google works fine without javascript. Stunningly fast. Until they block you for "suspicious behavior" after a few minutes of using it like that.
      - Baeocystin 6y ago
        Genuine question- has that happened to you?
        oauea 6y ago
        Yes! It also happens when I am not logged in, or use a VPN (though that is understandable). But simply disabling javascript and clicking next a few times is usually enough to set off their blockages. Even when not using a VPN. It happens less if you only ever look at the first page.
        Baeocystin 6y ago
        Interesting! Thanks for responding. I haven't had that happen to me yet, but I'm often using the same static IP I've had for years. Perhaps that keeps the trigger at bay.
        wolco2 6y ago
        It makes sense the fingerprint you create with javascript can identify you easily. Without that google treats you as suspect.
      - nabeelms 6y ago
        DDG has a No Javascript based search.
    - sundarurfriend 6y ago
      > Easily 2/3rds of the ones I visit work, FWIW. I started blocking JS a few weeks ago, and this has been my experience as well - a pleasant surprise. For a long time I thought that would be a step too far, that browsing would become so annoying and unpredictable because of it. Any annoyance from having to turn on JS for individual sites is easily outweighed by the number of annoyances I avoid - news websites are actually readable, blogs open with their content rather than with an in-your-face pop-up, and as a bonus, I pay attention to things like: how many 3rd party domains is it trying to connect to? does it require 3rd party JS to be enabled to function at all? did they even consider the possibility of disabled JS and bother to write a noscript message? Things like this translate to a measure of trustworthiness to me now, and I've been both horrified (by simple blogs trying to connect to 80+ domains) and pleasantly surprised (by complex-seeming websites that don't use 3rd party JS at all).
      - Moru 6y ago
        It's funny when the blocker says 99+ scripts blocked on a news site because it can't display more than two digits. Or when you end up with a black page because they didn't bother with a no-script version.
- Icathian 6y ago
  Would you mind offering a bit more detail about the "toggle"? Which browser, what's the name of the extension, etc. I would love something like that but don't really want to go through the effort of setting up a whitelist right now.
  - Baeocystin 6y ago
    Sure thing, I'll edit this reply with the extension in question when I get home. Won't be very long. [edit] The extension is called Quick Javascript Switcher. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/quick-javascript-switcher/geddoclleiomckbhadiaipdggiiccfje https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/quick-javascript-s... It works as advertised for being a Javascript toggle.
  - jmholla 6y ago
    Not the person you asked, but, NoScript is a choice. uBlock Origin as well with the right settings. Should be on Chrome or Firefox. On mobile, only the latter I think. Kiwi too?
    - IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
      with noscript, I blocked everything and then when sites broke, I very much enjoyed figuring out what element was the culprit. I became very good at remembering what elements rescued what urls. When i switched to Ublock origin, i didn't even realize how to do this. I just allowed all JS whenever i found broken sites. Now, this very thread encouraged me to finally figure out Ublock origin settings, and now, finally enable specific JS elements instead of a blanket "allow". Here is a gret userguide for Ublock origin toggle. https://www.maketecheasier.com/ultimate-ublock-origin-superusers-guide/ https://www.maketecheasier.com/ultimate-ublock-origin-superu...
eikenberry 6y ago
I use u-block origin on "medium" mode where you have it block 3rd party javascript by default and it behaves the same. Unblocking the cloudflare originating javascript fixes it. I'd guess my setup is more common than having javascript disabled entirely. Not a complaint, just another data point.
- TimLeland 6y ago
  Yes I do have the site behind cloudflare but could remove the javascript rocket loader feature. I will look into this. Thanks for sharing!
- esperent 6y ago
  Is there some reason you want to block cloudflare JS? If not, wouldn't it be easier to add an exception to uBlock rather than try to get devs to change their site for you?
  - eikenberry 6y ago
    No reason, I always just add a cloudflare exception and will probably look into making it a global exception as it is pretty common. I was chiming in to help the site dev understand the issue.. giving another data point.
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    There are some people who have JS disabled by default. See the NoScript extension. So the dev wouldn't just be changing it for eikenberry, but for all such people.
  - Triv888 6y ago
    Why would it be easier for all users to add an exception instead of one site owner to make one change?
  - alias_neo 6y ago
    The extension is blocking 3rd party JS. Nothing against Cloudflare specifically. There are various reasons to block 3rd party JS; security, privacy etc; CDNs and remote-linking of Javascript and other such content is counter productive to those endeavours. A good-citizen should aim to self-host anything as important as executable code _where possible_. The reasons, I hope, are obvious.
CarVac 6y ago
At work I'm not allowed to have any extensions so I just turn Javascript off in lieu of ublock origin.
phreack 6y ago
I wouldn't say it's common, but this is the one forum where a considerable amount of people disable JS when browsing (and likely only whitelist few if any sites). It's always a good thing to support nonetheless, so please go for it!
sneak 6y ago
Javascript JIT is a massive attack surface, and is disabled by many on higher-assurance machines.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
danielskogly 6y ago
I realize you're not using React for t.ly, but the method I outline in this[0] blog post could perhaps be made to work for you if you at any point would like to accommodate users without JS enabled. Yours is the kind of site that this method is best suited for - a relatively simple UI with basic I/O. The biggest hurdle I've encountered so far, is that Stripe doesn't offer a fully nojs alternative to enable users to make payments, although this would be incredibly easy for them to do, considering that they already offer a hosted checkout[1]. The only thing missing here is a way to get the checkout URL itself from the server side, when the Checkout-session is generated. [0] https://blog.klungo.no/2020/05/28/using-react-and-redux-to-acommodate-users-without-javascript/ https://blog.klungo.no/2020/05/28/using-react-and-redux-to-a... [1] https://stripe.com/en-no/payments/checkout https://stripe.com/en-no/payments/checkout
samb1729 6y ago
I browse with NoScript blocking JavaScript by default as too many web developers (or their managers) have violated my trust to not do Dodgy Stuff over the years. Unfortunately I don't believe there will ever exist accurate numbers of the true portion of people who browse a subset of the web with JavaScript disabled, at least partially because many of those same folks will prevent the means used to collect the data in the first place. It's no place for me to dictate how you do your development, so I won't do that. It is however my personal opinion that websites should depend on HTML and CSS, and progressively enhance functionality with sprinkles of JavaScript. The vast majority of websites are not interactive applications, and I think modern web development practices could do with something of a hard reset. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide how things ended up where they are now and whether it's a good thing for them. Personally I think it's comical and horrifying just how much compilation goes on in projects written in that particular interpreted language these days!
- ficklepickle 6y ago
  Do you run native phone apps? Because they are 10000x worse. 75mb to display a website and 20 tracking/retargeting libs. Apps are killing the open web anyway. People being born now will grow up without knowing what the web is. I agree about the state of the web tho. I'm a web dev and I often browse with JS disabled and always with adblocking and pihole.
  - labawi 6y ago
    Not OP, but only open source ones. It's a shame, but such is life. I have 1 client-provided phone that I only power on for specific purposes that is not neutered and has a closed-source app.
- labawi 6y ago
  It's an unfortunate effect. I feel conflicted about blocking all the tracking and stuff, as I believe most cites will ignore browsers such as mine in their statistics, where everyone has javascript, because analytics says so, and most will have webgl, webasm, canvas, webfont, notifications, whatever... They probably don't count private browsers even when I am a logged-in paying user - who parses server logs these days.
usr1106 6y ago
> I honestly didn't think anyone browsed the web without javascript enabled. Not very common in the general population. But there are those (mostly software developers) who prefer to be in control what code they run on their computers. I know one person who does most browsing using lynx. That is certainly extreme, but extensions like NoScript and uMatrix (has gone out of maintenance recently) certainly have their user base.
rauhl 6y ago
> I honestly didn't think anyone browsed the web without javascript enabled. I certainly do! I am sure that I am very unusual, but to this day I very much prefer not to grant execute permissions to ever page I read. JavaScript is a huge security/privacy/performance hole, and is simply not needed for displaying lines of text and images, nor for accepting forms data. It has some pros, too, but on the whole I really miss the mid-2000s Web and am not fond of all the web applications out there.
Moru 6y ago
I also run script blocking on everything. And I block the domains for all url shorteners in my DNS so I don't accidentally go to some weird site. I also evangelize this to all my customers and some actually want me to install it on their computers too. Sadly there is so many pages that breaks down without allowing a lot of external scripts but it has to be something really important for me to bother with unblocking something.
eadmund 6y ago
> I honestly didn't think anyone browsed the web without javascript enabled. How common is that? I don't know how common it is, but I do. I have a secondary browser profile which does allow it, but frankly for just about any page I visit if it doesn't work without JavaScript I will skip it: the Internet is large and I rarely need to look at a page.
cosmie 6y ago
You can actually sanity check how common it is for T.ly by triggering an analytics hit within a <noscript> tag. Looks like you're using GTM/GA on your site, so this[1] should put you on the right track. You'll still be blind to individuals that are blocking GTM/GA itself since you're not using the newer server-side GTM option, hence only a sanity check. But it's a fairly low-effort tweak to be able to get a read on how common it is for your site specifically. [1] https://www.simoahava.com/analytics/track-non-javascript-visits-google-analytics/ https://www.simoahava.com/analytics/track-non-javascript-vis...
zeveb 6y ago
> I honestly didn't think anyone browsed the web without javascript enabled. I know a bunch of folks have replied, but I'm another one. I remember back before JavaScript; I remember when Flash was the bane of those who cared about privacy or security; I remember when 'DHTML' was the buzzword of the day. I actually have a lot more appreciation for what JavaScript enables now than I used to. It really is neat that we have this platform-independent mostly-not-completely-insecure app runtime. Pity that it is built atop what should have been a hypertext system, though.
Ntrails 6y ago
NoScript is my starting point, and I'd need to really need a site to enable it globally.

Baeocystin 6y ago

>I honestly didn't think anyone browsed the web without javascript enabled. How common is that? Not the person you asked, but speaking for myself, all the time. I have a javascript toggle I use several times a day, and leave it set to off as much as I can.

TimLeland 6y ago
Interesting..How many sites work without javascript these days? Does google?
- agreeablebut 6y ago
  Plenty, and you get used to either toggling or enable the specific scripts that need to run.
- Baeocystin 6y ago
  More than you'd think, not as many as I'd hope. Easily 2/3rds of the ones I visit work, FWIW. Google works fine without javascript. Stunningly fast.
  - oauea 6y ago
    > Google works fine without javascript. Stunningly fast. Until they block you for "suspicious behavior" after a few minutes of using it like that.
    - Baeocystin 6y ago
      Genuine question- has that happened to you?
      - oauea 6y ago
        Yes! It also happens when I am not logged in, or use a VPN (though that is understandable). But simply disabling javascript and clicking next a few times is usually enough to set off their blockages. Even when not using a VPN. It happens less if you only ever look at the first page.
        Baeocystin 6y ago
        Interesting! Thanks for responding. I haven't had that happen to me yet, but I'm often using the same static IP I've had for years. Perhaps that keeps the trigger at bay.
        wolco2 6y ago
        It makes sense the fingerprint you create with javascript can identify you easily. Without that google treats you as suspect.
    - nabeelms 6y ago
      DDG has a No Javascript based search.
  - sundarurfriend 6y ago
    > Easily 2/3rds of the ones I visit work, FWIW. I started blocking JS a few weeks ago, and this has been my experience as well - a pleasant surprise. For a long time I thought that would be a step too far, that browsing would become so annoying and unpredictable because of it. Any annoyance from having to turn on JS for individual sites is easily outweighed by the number of annoyances I avoid - news websites are actually readable, blogs open with their content rather than with an in-your-face pop-up, and as a bonus, I pay attention to things like: how many 3rd party domains is it trying to connect to? does it require 3rd party JS to be enabled to function at all? did they even consider the possibility of disabled JS and bother to write a noscript message? Things like this translate to a measure of trustworthiness to me now, and I've been both horrified (by simple blogs trying to connect to 80+ domains) and pleasantly surprised (by complex-seeming websites that don't use 3rd party JS at all).
    - Moru 6y ago
      It's funny when the blocker says 99+ scripts blocked on a news site because it can't display more than two digits. Or when you end up with a black page because they didn't bother with a no-script version.
Icathian 6y ago
Would you mind offering a bit more detail about the "toggle"? Which browser, what's the name of the extension, etc. I would love something like that but don't really want to go through the effort of setting up a whitelist right now.
- Baeocystin 6y ago
  Sure thing, I'll edit this reply with the extension in question when I get home. Won't be very long. [edit] The extension is called Quick Javascript Switcher. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/quick-javascript-switcher/geddoclleiomckbhadiaipdggiiccfje https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/quick-javascript-s... It works as advertised for being a Javascript toggle.
- jmholla 6y ago
  Not the person you asked, but, NoScript is a choice. uBlock Origin as well with the right settings. Should be on Chrome or Firefox. On mobile, only the latter I think. Kiwi too?
  - IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
    with noscript, I blocked everything and then when sites broke, I very much enjoyed figuring out what element was the culprit. I became very good at remembering what elements rescued what urls. When i switched to Ublock origin, i didn't even realize how to do this. I just allowed all JS whenever i found broken sites. Now, this very thread encouraged me to finally figure out Ublock origin settings, and now, finally enable specific JS elements instead of a blanket "allow". Here is a gret userguide for Ublock origin toggle. https://www.maketecheasier.com/ultimate-ublock-origin-superusers-guide/ https://www.maketecheasier.com/ultimate-ublock-origin-superu...

eikenberry 6y ago

I use u-block origin on "medium" mode where you have it block 3rd party javascript by default and it behaves the same. Unblocking the cloudflare originating javascript fixes it. I'd guess my setup is more common than having javascript disabled entirely. Not a complaint, just another data point.

TimLeland 6y ago
Yes I do have the site behind cloudflare but could remove the javascript rocket loader feature. I will look into this. Thanks for sharing!
esperent 6y ago
Is there some reason you want to block cloudflare JS? If not, wouldn't it be easier to add an exception to uBlock rather than try to get devs to change their site for you?
- eikenberry 6y ago
  No reason, I always just add a cloudflare exception and will probably look into making it a global exception as it is pretty common. I was chiming in to help the site dev understand the issue.. giving another data point.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  There are some people who have JS disabled by default. See the NoScript extension. So the dev wouldn't just be changing it for eikenberry, but for all such people.
- Triv888 6y ago
  Why would it be easier for all users to add an exception instead of one site owner to make one change?
- alias_neo 6y ago
  The extension is blocking 3rd party JS. Nothing against Cloudflare specifically. There are various reasons to block 3rd party JS; security, privacy etc; CDNs and remote-linking of Javascript and other such content is counter productive to those endeavours. A good-citizen should aim to self-host anything as important as executable code _where possible_. The reasons, I hope, are obvious.

CarVac 6y ago

At work I'm not allowed to have any extensions so I just turn Javascript off in lieu of ublock origin.

phreack 6y ago

I wouldn't say it's common, but this is the one forum where a considerable amount of people disable JS when browsing (and likely only whitelist few if any sites). It's always a good thing to support nonetheless, so please go for it!

sneak 6y ago

Javascript JIT is a massive attack surface, and is disabled by many on higher-assurance machines.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

danielskogly 6y ago

I realize you're not using React for t.ly, but the method I outline in this[0] blog post could perhaps be made to work for you if you at any point would like to accommodate users without JS enabled. Yours is the kind of site that this method is best suited for - a relatively simple UI with basic I/O. The biggest hurdle I've encountered so far, is that Stripe doesn't offer a fully nojs alternative to enable users to make payments, although this would be incredibly easy for them to do, considering that they already offer a hosted checkout[1]. The only thing missing here is a way to get the checkout URL itself from the server side, when the Checkout-session is generated. [0] https://blog.klungo.no/2020/05/28/using-react-and-redux-to-acommodate-users-without-javascript/ https://blog.klungo.no/2020/05/28/using-react-and-redux-to-a... [1] https://stripe.com/en-no/payments/checkout https://stripe.com/en-no/payments/checkout

samb1729 6y ago

I browse with NoScript blocking JavaScript by default as too many web developers (or their managers) have violated my trust to not do Dodgy Stuff over the years. Unfortunately I don't believe there will ever exist accurate numbers of the true portion of people who browse a subset of the web with JavaScript disabled, at least partially because many of those same folks will prevent the means used to collect the data in the first place. It's no place for me to dictate how you do your development, so I won't do that. It is however my personal opinion that websites should depend on HTML and CSS, and progressively enhance functionality with sprinkles of JavaScript. The vast majority of websites are not interactive applications, and I think modern web development practices could do with something of a hard reset. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide how things ended up where they are now and whether it's a good thing for them. Personally I think it's comical and horrifying just how much compilation goes on in projects written in that particular interpreted language these days!

ficklepickle 6y ago
Do you run native phone apps? Because they are 10000x worse. 75mb to display a website and 20 tracking/retargeting libs. Apps are killing the open web anyway. People being born now will grow up without knowing what the web is. I agree about the state of the web tho. I'm a web dev and I often browse with JS disabled and always with adblocking and pihole.
- labawi 6y ago
  Not OP, but only open source ones. It's a shame, but such is life. I have 1 client-provided phone that I only power on for specific purposes that is not neutered and has a closed-source app.
labawi 6y ago
It's an unfortunate effect. I feel conflicted about blocking all the tracking and stuff, as I believe most cites will ignore browsers such as mine in their statistics, where everyone has javascript, because analytics says so, and most will have webgl, webasm, canvas, webfont, notifications, whatever... They probably don't count private browsers even when I am a logged-in paying user - who parses server logs these days.

usr1106 6y ago

> I honestly didn't think anyone browsed the web without javascript enabled. Not very common in the general population. But there are those (mostly software developers) who prefer to be in control what code they run on their computers. I know one person who does most browsing using lynx. That is certainly extreme, but extensions like NoScript and uMatrix (has gone out of maintenance recently) certainly have their user base.

rauhl 6y ago

> I honestly didn't think anyone browsed the web without javascript enabled. I certainly do! I am sure that I am very unusual, but to this day I very much prefer not to grant execute permissions to ever page I read. JavaScript is a huge security/privacy/performance hole, and is simply not needed for displaying lines of text and images, nor for accepting forms data. It has some pros, too, but on the whole I really miss the mid-2000s Web and am not fond of all the web applications out there.

Moru 6y ago

I also run script blocking on everything. And I block the domains for all url shorteners in my DNS so I don't accidentally go to some weird site. I also evangelize this to all my customers and some actually want me to install it on their computers too. Sadly there is so many pages that breaks down without allowing a lot of external scripts but it has to be something really important for me to bother with unblocking something.

eadmund 6y ago

> I honestly didn't think anyone browsed the web without javascript enabled. How common is that? I don't know how common it is, but I do. I have a secondary browser profile which does allow it, but frankly for just about any page I visit if it doesn't work without JavaScript I will skip it: the Internet is large and I rarely need to look at a page.

cosmie 6y ago

You can actually sanity check how common it is for T.ly by triggering an analytics hit within a <noscript> tag. Looks like you're using GTM/GA on your site, so this[1] should put you on the right track. You'll still be blind to individuals that are blocking GTM/GA itself since you're not using the newer server-side GTM option, hence only a sanity check. But it's a fairly low-effort tweak to be able to get a read on how common it is for your site specifically. [1] https://www.simoahava.com/analytics/track-non-javascript-visits-google-analytics/ https://www.simoahava.com/analytics/track-non-javascript-vis...

zeveb 6y ago

> I honestly didn't think anyone browsed the web without javascript enabled. I know a bunch of folks have replied, but I'm another one. I remember back before JavaScript; I remember when Flash was the bane of those who cared about privacy or security; I remember when 'DHTML' was the buzzword of the day. I actually have a lot more appreciation for what JavaScript enables now than I used to. It really is neat that we have this platform-independent mostly-not-completely-insecure app runtime. Pity that it is built atop what should have been a hypertext system, though.

Ntrails 6y ago

NoScript is my starting point, and I'd need to really need a site to enable it globally.