4 ms·
I can tell you. My entire web experience is JavaScript free on a day-to-day basis. It's fast. It's more free from distractions. It's accessible (plain text t
by nonrandomstring 5y ago
I can tell you. My entire web experience is JavaScript free on a
day-to-day basis.
It's fast.
It's more free from distractions.
It's accessible (plain text to copy-paste or feed a screen reader)
It's more secure.
It's limited.
The last of these is a bit obvious, and seems like a problem, until
you try it and realise it's not. About 10% of websites will absolutely
not run at all without JavaScript, and those seem to be the BigTech,
low information density, low quality ones I can do without. So I take
the "limitation"to be a feature, a free filter I get that weeds out a
lot of the rubbish,
Once or twice a week there's about 0.5% of "essential" sites where I
am effectively _forced_ to use JavaScript. For those I have a separate
laptop.
- muzani 5y agoCurious if essential sites include Google and YouTube. I tried running YouTube on my wife's old Win XP laptop and it refuses to load.
- nonrandomstring 5y agoGoogle basic search was fine without js last time I used it, but I choose not to use it. Instead I use a range of smaller search engines. Youtube is unusable (I mean even on a normie browser) - it's a crazy mass of popups, frames, ever shifting css, things that jump around when you hover over... like a 90's Geocities site. What I do is use duckduckgo (through the hidden service) to look for videos I want (it indexes all of them fine, but crafting the search terms is challenging), then just grab them using youtube-dl. Increasingly though, search hits for lectures or talks I am looking for come up on sites other than youtube, and given the choice I'll download from the non-google one. Youtube-dl works with a surprising range of sites.