7 ms·

Yay, another page that doesn't render at all without JS. And then we sit and wonder how NSO Group is able to compromise all these machines with ease, and yes,

Yay, another page that doesn't render at all without JS. And then we sit and wonder how NSO Group is able to compromise all these machines with ease, and yes, they had/have browser exploits.

fireball_blaze 5y ago
What % of web users surf the web without JS turned on? (Honest question, I don't know.) And if this % is very tiny, does it make sense for devs to devote time developing an experience for this rare edge case?
- vbezhenar 5y ago
  Would you apply this reasoning to Firefox support?
- Wistar 5y ago
  Me, for one. I always use NoScipt. and although it can be a hassle, I am willing to bet that it has saved me some anguish over the years.
- seba_dos1 5y ago
  Yes, it does. Not using JavaScript to present documents is the default, you actually need to devote time to make it the other way. Relying on JavaScript significantly increases your failure surface. Outdated browsers, buggy extensions, network failures, poor error handling - it becomes much more likely for your content to not display even when the user does not actually turn JavaScript off.
- hyproxia 5y ago
  Here's another way of looking at it: Does this page really need to execute code on its users' machines? Why is this such an acceptable thing in the first place?
  - darkcha0s 5y ago
    Because lots of information is easier to take in with animation and ease of use features vs. staring at a wall of text.
    - Xelbair 5y ago
      but then how the pure wall of text does not display on some of those sites if JS is turned off? Surely you don't need it to just display text?
    - andreasley 5y ago
      Everything on that page (except for the audio player) can be done with simple HTML and CSS.
      - ls15 5y ago
        Audio players can be done with HTML
    - mixedCase 5y ago
      I agree. There are some mediums such as interactive diagrams that greatly facilitate learning some kinds of information. None of that applies to this page, nor `99.${"9".repeat(n)}%` of articles posted including this one.
      - Someone1234 5y ago
        > None of that applies to this page It is a podcast with a JavaScript audio-player being the main purpose of the page...
        cyberbanjo 5y ago
        The transcript page which is just text also requires it
        hyproxia 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cmeacham98 5y ago
  Anecdotally, based on my own data, roughly 0.2% to 0.3% after excluding bot/crawler UAs (and I run a website more likely to be visited by "techy" users, probably lower for the general population).
- jjgreen 5y ago
  No idea, but I browse without js (enabled on a case-by-case basis). I'd say 10-15% of the links from the HN front-page are broken without js, I generally move on to the next one.
- tut-urut-utut 5y ago
  I have JS enabled, but don't allow third-party JS. Sorry, for the author, but I'm not going to enable google-apis and other google spyware scripts to load on my browser just to see what they're up to in this blog post. As someone who supposedly wrote an article about fighting spyware, they should know better that to require loading google scripts in order to see a simple page.
- turminal 5y ago
  Static content is static by default. It only becomes JS dependent if someone makes it JS dependent.
- nabilhat 5y ago
  A better question is, what % of web developers test their JS rendering on the array of browsers it's guaranteed to encounter, or consider what happens when very basic privacy tools are in use? Those aren't relevant questions for this case, however. The page isn't failing to render without JS, it's failing to render without third party JS. For a group whose nominal message is bragging about their hax0r skills, it's pretty clumsy to build in a single point of fail dependency on code they don't control, then require their users to run it.
- smhenderson 5y ago
  I'm not sure what the ratio is. What I do know is that there is a concept that, to me used to be a well known concept, that web developer's are encouraged to follow called "graceful degradation". I wish more people would pay it some attention. Whether it's due to capabilities of a browser or extra security measures a user would like to practice graceful degradation allows content to be shared with more people than not. https://www.w3.org/wiki/Graceful_degradation_versus_progressive_enhancement https://www.w3.org/wiki/Graceful_degradation_versus_progress...
  - brightball 5y ago
    Huge advocate. Makes life easier for screen readers too.
- WorkLobster 5y ago
  Just a note that you've framed the question as "without JS turned on" but it's not always a choice; there are people who don't have access to sufficiently new hardware or reliable telecoms that it will work as intended. As an example, for the past ten years I have had to browse with a tablet that crashed every time JS was enabled (luckily I could recently justify the expense of a new one, so that won't be the case any more when it arrives)
- ryantgtg 5y ago
  I have JS turned on on my phone, yet this website did not render. I am using content blockers, yet there are no trackers on this site so I’m not sure what exactly is being blocked!
mnw21cam 5y ago
Can someone post the content into a comment here please?
- EastOfTruth 5y ago
  The transcript is probably about 30 pages: https://pastebin.com/7HfHiwVD https://pastebin.com/7HfHiwVD
  - hyproxia 5y ago
    Thank you for posting it, I wish that this becomes a trend on HN (and other forums).
minusf 5y ago
i find it equally if not worse that there are now sites that refuse to open if cookies are disabled. for anonymous, non logged in visitors
pera 5y ago
You don't need to enable javascript if you use Firefox: just toggle Reader View (ctrl+alt+r) and read the full transcript
dang 5y ago
"Please don't complain about website formatting, back-button breakage, and similar annoyances. They're too common to be interesting. Exception: when the author is present. Then friendly feedback might be helpful." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- hyproxia 5y ago
  I know, I've read the rules. Still, I thought that this is an interesting exception since it's directly related to the content at hand.
DerekBickerton 5y ago
> Another page that doesn't render at all without JS I find it ironic. For a site that discusses privacy/cybercrime/surveillance you would expect it works with JS turned off. I imagine many of their visitors visit the site with the Tor Browser Bundle. And I'd say roughly 33% of those have the 'safety slider' set to 'safest' which blocks JS globally.

Yay, another page that doesn't render at all without JS. And then we sit and wonder how NSO Group is able to compromise all these machines with ease, and yes, they had/have browser exploits.

fireball_blaze 5y ago

What % of web users surf the web without JS turned on? (Honest question, I don't know.) And if this % is very tiny, does it make sense for devs to devote time developing an experience for this rare edge case?

vbezhenar 5y ago
Would you apply this reasoning to Firefox support?
Wistar 5y ago
Me, for one. I always use NoScipt. and although it can be a hassle, I am willing to bet that it has saved me some anguish over the years.
seba_dos1 5y ago
Yes, it does. Not using JavaScript to present documents is the default, you actually need to devote time to make it the other way. Relying on JavaScript significantly increases your failure surface. Outdated browsers, buggy extensions, network failures, poor error handling - it becomes much more likely for your content to not display even when the user does not actually turn JavaScript off.
hyproxia 5y ago
Here's another way of looking at it: Does this page really need to execute code on its users' machines? Why is this such an acceptable thing in the first place?
- darkcha0s 5y ago
  Because lots of information is easier to take in with animation and ease of use features vs. staring at a wall of text.
  - Xelbair 5y ago
    but then how the pure wall of text does not display on some of those sites if JS is turned off? Surely you don't need it to just display text?
  - andreasley 5y ago
    Everything on that page (except for the audio player) can be done with simple HTML and CSS.
    - ls15 5y ago
      Audio players can be done with HTML
  - mixedCase 5y ago
    I agree. There are some mediums such as interactive diagrams that greatly facilitate learning some kinds of information. None of that applies to this page, nor `99.${"9".repeat(n)}%` of articles posted including this one.
    - Someone1234 5y ago
      > None of that applies to this page It is a podcast with a JavaScript audio-player being the main purpose of the page...
      - cyberbanjo 5y ago
        The transcript page which is just text also requires it
      - hyproxia 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cmeacham98 5y ago
Anecdotally, based on my own data, roughly 0.2% to 0.3% after excluding bot/crawler UAs (and I run a website more likely to be visited by "techy" users, probably lower for the general population).
jjgreen 5y ago
No idea, but I browse without js (enabled on a case-by-case basis). I'd say 10-15% of the links from the HN front-page are broken without js, I generally move on to the next one.
tut-urut-utut 5y ago
I have JS enabled, but don't allow third-party JS. Sorry, for the author, but I'm not going to enable google-apis and other google spyware scripts to load on my browser just to see what they're up to in this blog post. As someone who supposedly wrote an article about fighting spyware, they should know better that to require loading google scripts in order to see a simple page.
turminal 5y ago
Static content is static by default. It only becomes JS dependent if someone makes it JS dependent.
nabilhat 5y ago
A better question is, what % of web developers test their JS rendering on the array of browsers it's guaranteed to encounter, or consider what happens when very basic privacy tools are in use? Those aren't relevant questions for this case, however. The page isn't failing to render without JS, it's failing to render without third party JS. For a group whose nominal message is bragging about their hax0r skills, it's pretty clumsy to build in a single point of fail dependency on code they don't control, then require their users to run it.
smhenderson 5y ago
I'm not sure what the ratio is. What I do know is that there is a concept that, to me used to be a well known concept, that web developer's are encouraged to follow called "graceful degradation". I wish more people would pay it some attention. Whether it's due to capabilities of a browser or extra security measures a user would like to practice graceful degradation allows content to be shared with more people than not. https://www.w3.org/wiki/Graceful_degradation_versus_progressive_enhancement https://www.w3.org/wiki/Graceful_degradation_versus_progress...
- brightball 5y ago
  Huge advocate. Makes life easier for screen readers too.
WorkLobster 5y ago
Just a note that you've framed the question as "without JS turned on" but it's not always a choice; there are people who don't have access to sufficiently new hardware or reliable telecoms that it will work as intended. As an example, for the past ten years I have had to browse with a tablet that crashed every time JS was enabled (luckily I could recently justify the expense of a new one, so that won't be the case any more when it arrives)
ryantgtg 5y ago
I have JS turned on on my phone, yet this website did not render. I am using content blockers, yet there are no trackers on this site so I’m not sure what exactly is being blocked!

mnw21cam 5y ago

Can someone post the content into a comment here please?

EastOfTruth 5y ago
The transcript is probably about 30 pages: https://pastebin.com/7HfHiwVD https://pastebin.com/7HfHiwVD
- hyproxia 5y ago
  Thank you for posting it, I wish that this becomes a trend on HN (and other forums).

minusf 5y ago

i find it equally if not worse that there are now sites that refuse to open if cookies are disabled. for anonymous, non logged in visitors

pera 5y ago

You don't need to enable javascript if you use Firefox: just toggle Reader View (ctrl+alt+r) and read the full transcript

dang 5y ago

"Please don't complain about website formatting, back-button breakage, and similar annoyances. They're too common to be interesting. Exception: when the author is present. Then friendly feedback might be helpful." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

hyproxia 5y ago
I know, I've read the rules. Still, I thought that this is an interesting exception since it's directly related to the content at hand.

DerekBickerton 5y ago

> Another page that doesn't render at all without JS I find it ironic. For a site that discusses privacy/cybercrime/surveillance you would expect it works with JS turned off. I imagine many of their visitors visit the site with the Tor Browser Bundle. And I'd say roughly 33% of those have the 'safety slider' set to 'safest' which blocks JS globally.