8 ms·

I often see people speak about requiring users to have JS enabled as a problem. But is that really an issue? I remember 5-10 years ago I would use things like n

by kashug 5y ago

I often see people speak about requiring users to have JS enabled as a problem. But is that really an issue? I remember 5-10 years ago I would use things like no-script to disable javascript, and only enable on specific sites. But with the way modern frontends are, I would expect most website to not work at all if I disabled JS. So I would expect most users to have JS enabled anyway. I can't remember the last time I created a website in a professional setting that would work without JS. Everything is written in things like React, Angular and Vue.js these days. And that seems to be the case for most modern websites. Atleast things made here in Oslo.

hetspookjee 5y ago
I often browse the internet through Firefox Focus with JavaScript disabled and the web is a breeze and really fast. Additionally it helps in escaping paywall s for most news sites.
simion314 5y ago
If the website is a blog post, or some news it should work without JS, You don't need an SPA to show some rich text. I use Vivaldi because it makes easy to have JS off by default and enable for each website that really needs it. (I do not know if Chrome/Chromium made this thing easy too)
- amelius 5y ago
  > I use Vivaldi because it makes easy to have JS off by default and enable for each website that really needs it. So you fill in this entire form, hit submit, and then find out that you really needed JS and now you have to fill in the form all over again. How is that easy?
  - simion314 5y ago
    I am a developer, I can guess what site needs JS, like payment sites, sites that are actually SPAs. Check all submissions from HN and let me know how many have forms , load fine without JS and don't complain that JS is off and then fail on submit? It is easy because I don't get popups for cookies, for allowing location access, no fancy scroll effects , I also disabled animated GIFs. If you are a webdev and you don't work on an SPA but for some reason you site is half broken with JS off then use the standards and put a message that informs the user that JS is required. I would not setup this to some random person computer, ad blockers too can screw with shopping carts and some websites also beg to stop the ad blocker , so I would not install ad blockers too any random person either, but here on HN JS off by default is a good advice, most should understand that if page is blank or some button does nothing then it might be a JS related issue.
  - zeveb 5y ago
    Whose fault is that? The one who disables the JavaScript not actually needed to submit a POST request, or the one who implements a web service which requires client code execution to receive a POST request (or worse, who uses GET for POST)?
- bbarnett 5y ago
  You don't need an SPA to show some rich text. No, you need it to pad your resume.
vasco 5y ago
People that are in the web since forever and understand how it works and complain about JS are the weirdest form of tech ludites there are. Such a weird line in the sand.
- thehta 5y ago
  How is it weird? You literally go from > viewing text/parsing XML to > allowing remote sites to execute code on your machine, immediately when you load a site. That's quite a big jump, regardless of all the browser sandboxing.
  - nl 5y ago
    HTML has never been XML. And HTML + CSS3 is Turing complete without Javascript anyway: https://accodeing.com/blog/2015/css3-proven-to-be-turing-complete https://accodeing.com/blog/2015/css3-proven-to-be-turing-com...
    - kitsune_ 5y ago
      Amen, I think if memory serves correctly HTML was SGML inspired and once XML became popular there was a XHTML standardization push for a brief time. I think you could argue that the ubiquity of HTML led to people see value in something like XML back in the late 90's / early 00' and HTML drove XML invention and adoption and not the other way around.
  - jstummbillig 5y ago
    In a mere 20-ish years. Crazy.
    - diroussel 5y ago
      And how many years did HTML exist before JavaScript was invented?
      - jstummbillig 5y ago
jstummbillig 5y ago
If you chose to flat out disable JS in 2021 (by all means, go for it), understand that you are the Amish of the Internet -- so, please, behave like the Amish of the Internet. Be cool with the consequences of your deliberate choice. Do not expect other people to work around you or, worse, resent them for not doing so. This is not to say that JS isn't being abused a lot -- but then again, it's soft tech, it's the internet and the abuse comes at little cost (compared to most industries). I always thought it's a huge part of what makes it fun and speeds all progress along like crazy.
- turminal 5y ago
  No. Calling someone Amish of the internet because they refuse to be tracked, refuse to take part in voluntary remote code execution or just do their computing on a computer from 2010 on a poor internet connection is just sad. If you want to live in a world where everything is a SPA by all means go for it, but be prepared to be criticised for making a blog post or a news story that is literally a bunch of text paragraphs interleaved with images require Javascript. Doing so is not progress.
  - sgt 5y ago
    Use Safari - anti tracking measures etc.
    - turminal 5y ago
      I don't see how locking myself into a walled garden would improve the situation.
  - jstummbillig 5y ago
    > If you want to live in a world where Hi, this is World speaking. You can pretend it's not me. That's a bit silly but oh well, it's hardly a contender for the most outrageous thing that happened around here today. You can also chose to only partly partake in what's going on RIGHT NOW and be very cool with that decision. Like, oh I don't know, the Amish. But this is what I am today. Please get real. Your friend, World
Xelbair 5y ago
>I often see people speak about requiring users to have JS enabled as a problem. But is that really an issue? With how prevalent tracking on the internet is, despite GDPR's attempts. Yes, it is an issue.
- nl 5y ago
  But Javascript has little to do with tracking. Third party cookies is a much bigger concern there, and mostly orthogonal to the use of Javascript.
  - zelphirkalt 5y ago
    JS is used for fingerprinting and very often to load additional trackers.
cheschire 5y ago
The best justifiable use case I’ve seen for building site that also functions without JS is accessibility in the section 508 sense. It’s been a few years though so perhaps new standards have emerged for this purpose.
- NoGravitas 5y ago
  There are. You can make a complex JS browser application that's completely accessible if you follow every single recommendation, and ARIA-tag every element that needs it. That said, a lot of what you are doing in a browser application is re-implementing your own version of stuff that the browser already does, and the browser's version of it is accessible by default. So a JS-free application is almost always fully accessible for no extra development cost (as long as you check it for things like foreground/background contrast).
nathias 5y ago
modern frontends work with disabled JS because of SSR
eadmund 5y ago
> I can't remember the last time I created a website in a professional setting that would work without JS. A website which does not work without JavaScript is by definition unprofessional. That doesn't apply to web applications, which of course use JavaScript heavily, and need to (at least until WebAssembly is ready for prime time — and even then JavaScript is required as a shim). The Web is a web of hyper-linked pages, documents. It does not require JavaScript, although of course many pages are improved with the dynamic behaviour enabled by JavaScript.
- rauhl 5y ago
  > That doesn't apply to web applications, which of course use JavaScript heavily I propose that rather than ‘Web applications’ these be called ‘browser applications,’ because they are applications that run within the browser runtime. It is basically a coincidence (and a convenience) that they happen to rely on the same technology used for the Web. What I don’t understand is why folks write browser applications for things that the Web platform already handles well. The Web is pretty cool! Not perfect, but then nothing is.
- lelandfe 5y ago
  An odd definition of unprofessional. Building and testing a site for running without JS is a non-zero cost. But I've never seen usage stats that show that demographic above 1.5% of the browser market share – and those are old stats. It was sub 0.5% for the sites that I ran at the time (2018). I don't mean to sound flippant, nor do I mean to insult anyone's favorite browsing style, but insisting on this might be shouting into the wind? I could never make a business case for it, at least.
- mbesto 5y ago
  By definition? Who's definition? > The Web is a web of hyper-linked pages The web is an open specification that has evolved greatly over time. Pretending like these principles are religious are exactly the antithesis of an open standard. It requires debate and discourse.
Geenkaas 5y ago
We run a sizeable webshop that can fall back entirely on non-js for whatever reasons with plain forms and HTML. Not based in Oslo though.
akavel 5y ago
FWIW, I do still totally use NoScript, and am somewhat picky with what I enable; quite many e.g. blogs (and news sites too) are in fact readable enough without it. And in case of blogs in particular (especially on the blogger site), I do quite often just skip reading them if they don't show anything with JS disabled, as this is plain dumb first of all, but also tends to be a strong signal that the particular site will be super slow, annoying, and hard to read with JS enabled anyway.

by kashug 5y ago

hetspookjee 5y ago

I often browse the internet through Firefox Focus with JavaScript disabled and the web is a breeze and really fast. Additionally it helps in escaping paywall s for most news sites.

simion314 5y ago

If the website is a blog post, or some news it should work without JS, You don't need an SPA to show some rich text. I use Vivaldi because it makes easy to have JS off by default and enable for each website that really needs it. (I do not know if Chrome/Chromium made this thing easy too)

amelius 5y ago
> I use Vivaldi because it makes easy to have JS off by default and enable for each website that really needs it. So you fill in this entire form, hit submit, and then find out that you really needed JS and now you have to fill in the form all over again. How is that easy?
- simion314 5y ago
  I am a developer, I can guess what site needs JS, like payment sites, sites that are actually SPAs. Check all submissions from HN and let me know how many have forms , load fine without JS and don't complain that JS is off and then fail on submit? It is easy because I don't get popups for cookies, for allowing location access, no fancy scroll effects , I also disabled animated GIFs. If you are a webdev and you don't work on an SPA but for some reason you site is half broken with JS off then use the standards and put a message that informs the user that JS is required. I would not setup this to some random person computer, ad blockers too can screw with shopping carts and some websites also beg to stop the ad blocker , so I would not install ad blockers too any random person either, but here on HN JS off by default is a good advice, most should understand that if page is blank or some button does nothing then it might be a JS related issue.
- zeveb 5y ago
  Whose fault is that? The one who disables the JavaScript not actually needed to submit a POST request, or the one who implements a web service which requires client code execution to receive a POST request (or worse, who uses GET for POST)?
bbarnett 5y ago
You don't need an SPA to show some rich text. No, you need it to pad your resume.

vasco 5y ago

People that are in the web since forever and understand how it works and complain about JS are the weirdest form of tech ludites there are. Such a weird line in the sand.

thehta 5y ago
How is it weird? You literally go from > viewing text/parsing XML to > allowing remote sites to execute code on your machine, immediately when you load a site. That's quite a big jump, regardless of all the browser sandboxing.
- nl 5y ago
  HTML has never been XML. And HTML + CSS3 is Turing complete without Javascript anyway: https://accodeing.com/blog/2015/css3-proven-to-be-turing-complete https://accodeing.com/blog/2015/css3-proven-to-be-turing-com...
  - kitsune_ 5y ago
    Amen, I think if memory serves correctly HTML was SGML inspired and once XML became popular there was a XHTML standardization push for a brief time. I think you could argue that the ubiquity of HTML led to people see value in something like XML back in the late 90's / early 00' and HTML drove XML invention and adoption and not the other way around.
- jstummbillig 5y ago
  In a mere 20-ish years. Crazy.
  - diroussel 5y ago
    And how many years did HTML exist before JavaScript was invented?
    - jstummbillig 5y ago

jstummbillig 5y ago

If you chose to flat out disable JS in 2021 (by all means, go for it), understand that you are the Amish of the Internet -- so, please, behave like the Amish of the Internet. Be cool with the consequences of your deliberate choice. Do not expect other people to work around you or, worse, resent them for not doing so. This is not to say that JS isn't being abused a lot -- but then again, it's soft tech, it's the internet and the abuse comes at little cost (compared to most industries). I always thought it's a huge part of what makes it fun and speeds all progress along like crazy.

turminal 5y ago
No. Calling someone Amish of the internet because they refuse to be tracked, refuse to take part in voluntary remote code execution or just do their computing on a computer from 2010 on a poor internet connection is just sad. If you want to live in a world where everything is a SPA by all means go for it, but be prepared to be criticised for making a blog post or a news story that is literally a bunch of text paragraphs interleaved with images require Javascript. Doing so is not progress.
- sgt 5y ago
  Use Safari - anti tracking measures etc.
  - turminal 5y ago
    I don't see how locking myself into a walled garden would improve the situation.
- jstummbillig 5y ago
  > If you want to live in a world where Hi, this is World speaking. You can pretend it's not me. That's a bit silly but oh well, it's hardly a contender for the most outrageous thing that happened around here today. You can also chose to only partly partake in what's going on RIGHT NOW and be very cool with that decision. Like, oh I don't know, the Amish. But this is what I am today. Please get real. Your friend, World

Xelbair 5y ago

>I often see people speak about requiring users to have JS enabled as a problem. But is that really an issue? With how prevalent tracking on the internet is, despite GDPR's attempts. Yes, it is an issue.

nl 5y ago
But Javascript has little to do with tracking. Third party cookies is a much bigger concern there, and mostly orthogonal to the use of Javascript.
- zelphirkalt 5y ago
  JS is used for fingerprinting and very often to load additional trackers.

cheschire 5y ago

The best justifiable use case I’ve seen for building site that also functions without JS is accessibility in the section 508 sense. It’s been a few years though so perhaps new standards have emerged for this purpose.

NoGravitas 5y ago
There are. You can make a complex JS browser application that's completely accessible if you follow every single recommendation, and ARIA-tag every element that needs it. That said, a lot of what you are doing in a browser application is re-implementing your own version of stuff that the browser already does, and the browser's version of it is accessible by default. So a JS-free application is almost always fully accessible for no extra development cost (as long as you check it for things like foreground/background contrast).

nathias 5y ago

modern frontends work with disabled JS because of SSR

eadmund 5y ago

> I can't remember the last time I created a website in a professional setting that would work without JS. A website which does not work without JavaScript is by definition unprofessional. That doesn't apply to web applications, which of course use JavaScript heavily, and need to (at least until WebAssembly is ready for prime time — and even then JavaScript is required as a shim). The Web is a web of hyper-linked pages, documents. It does not require JavaScript, although of course many pages are improved with the dynamic behaviour enabled by JavaScript.

rauhl 5y ago
> That doesn't apply to web applications, which of course use JavaScript heavily I propose that rather than ‘Web applications’ these be called ‘browser applications,’ because they are applications that run within the browser runtime. It is basically a coincidence (and a convenience) that they happen to rely on the same technology used for the Web. What I don’t understand is why folks write browser applications for things that the Web platform already handles well. The Web is pretty cool! Not perfect, but then nothing is.
lelandfe 5y ago
An odd definition of unprofessional. Building and testing a site for running without JS is a non-zero cost. But I've never seen usage stats that show that demographic above 1.5% of the browser market share – and those are old stats. It was sub 0.5% for the sites that I ran at the time (2018). I don't mean to sound flippant, nor do I mean to insult anyone's favorite browsing style, but insisting on this might be shouting into the wind? I could never make a business case for it, at least.
mbesto 5y ago
By definition? Who's definition? > The Web is a web of hyper-linked pages The web is an open specification that has evolved greatly over time. Pretending like these principles are religious are exactly the antithesis of an open standard. It requires debate and discourse.

Geenkaas 5y ago

We run a sizeable webshop that can fall back entirely on non-js for whatever reasons with plain forms and HTML. Not based in Oslo though.

akavel 5y ago

FWIW, I do still totally use NoScript, and am somewhat picky with what I enable; quite many e.g. blogs (and news sites too) are in fact readable enough without it. And in case of blogs in particular (especially on the blogger site), I do quite often just skip reading them if they don't show anything with JS disabled, as this is plain dumb first of all, but also tends to be a strong signal that the particular site will be super slow, annoying, and hard to read with JS enabled anyway.