7 ms·

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

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
        https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/audio https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/au...
- Someone1234 5y ago
  > Why is this such an acceptable thing in the first place? Because before we had local desktop applications that were substantially less secure, with far greater default access rights (even root/admin in many cases). Webapps that execute in a silo-ed virtual machine with only access to their own data (without express permissions), is a substantial security improvement (and also doesn't require the user to install anything). To be honest the people who want to visit a website, for free, and then insist on how that website is delivered are super entitled. If you don't want to execute a site's code in a browser's secure context then don't, but you cannot whine about it like they owe you.
  - hyproxia 5y ago
    >for free No, the site owner is usually gaining money from his users (through ads, tracking, etc). This is an incredibly dishonest statement.
    - Someone1234 5y ago
      > No, the site owner is usually gaining money from his users (through ads, tracking, etc). This is an incredibly dishonest statement. Which you're purposely trying to avoid by disabling JavaScript, thus mooching and demanding that they design the site around your niche desires. NoJs users are negative revenue users. They cost the same as a revenue user but block revenue streams. Then feel like more resources should be spent on just them.
      - cudgy 5y ago
        Why is Javascript required to show an ad? Embed the ad in the content.
        Someone1234 5y ago
        > Embed the ad in the content. You're then asking businesses to pay to place ads that you cannot assure them were actually viewed by anyone. It can work, but companies will pay more for ads that can prove they were even rendered let alone uniquely. Many business models don't work with reduced revenues, thus you can embed ads in content, take the lower revenue, but then need to structure your business around the lower total revenue. Typically, when businesses have goals like these they end up instead just doing a membership model wherein it is ad-less but the users/audience is paying them directly for content production.
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!

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
      https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/audio https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/au...
Someone1234 5y ago
> Why is this such an acceptable thing in the first place? Because before we had local desktop applications that were substantially less secure, with far greater default access rights (even root/admin in many cases). Webapps that execute in a silo-ed virtual machine with only access to their own data (without express permissions), is a substantial security improvement (and also doesn't require the user to install anything). To be honest the people who want to visit a website, for free, and then insist on how that website is delivered are super entitled. If you don't want to execute a site's code in a browser's secure context then don't, but you cannot whine about it like they owe you.
- hyproxia 5y ago
  >for free No, the site owner is usually gaining money from his users (through ads, tracking, etc). This is an incredibly dishonest statement.
  - Someone1234 5y ago
    > No, the site owner is usually gaining money from his users (through ads, tracking, etc). This is an incredibly dishonest statement. Which you're purposely trying to avoid by disabling JavaScript, thus mooching and demanding that they design the site around your niche desires. NoJs users are negative revenue users. They cost the same as a revenue user but block revenue streams. Then feel like more resources should be spent on just them.
    - cudgy 5y ago
      Why is Javascript required to show an ad? Embed the ad in the content.
      - Someone1234 5y ago
        > Embed the ad in the content. You're then asking businesses to pay to place ads that you cannot assure them were actually viewed by anyone. It can work, but companies will pay more for ads that can prove they were even rendered let alone uniquely. Many business models don't work with reduced revenues, thus you can embed ads in content, take the lower revenue, but then need to structure your business around the lower total revenue. Typically, when businesses have goals like these they end up instead just doing a membership model wherein it is ad-less but the users/audience is paying them directly for content production.

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!