5 ms·

How does this do with sites that won't render without JavaScript? I browse with noscript and everything block by default. I'm constantly having to turn on JavaS

How does this do with sites that won't render without JavaScript? I browse with noscript and everything block by default. I'm constantly having to turn on JavaScript for sites that are blank until you do.

rkta 5y ago
Sites that require JavaScript do not work in w3m, as w3m does not support JS.
- ape4 5y ago
  I suppose a command line browser could support JavaScript. Of course non trivial to do.
  - yashasolutions 5y ago
    https://edbrowse.org/ https://edbrowse.org/ does support js and is 100% command line - but it's really closer to ed than it is vim in terms of user experience...
daneel_w 5y ago
It comes to a grinding halt, just as it does with sites that use CSS for both enabling content and for its layout.
inopinatus 5y ago
The old-fashioned way: breathe a sigh of relief, and move on to less egregious sites.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  It's a nice sentiment, but these days it's almost impossible to conduct business with JavaScript disabled. At least business in the parts of the economy I work in. The moment somebody sends me a Google Drive link (about three times a week), w3m goes back on the shelf and I have to pick up a modern standard-compliant browser.
  - bscphil 5y ago
    I don't anyone is suggesting that you should, in practice, adopt w3m or any other text browser as your exclusive way to access web resources.
    - lupire 5y ago
      grandparent comment was suggesting exactly that, with "breathe a sigh of relief".
      - inopinatus 5y ago
        I wrote that remark, and I was not. I’m not even using w3m right now, and observe that the comment I replied to was more general, relating to all browsing without Javascript. Extreme positions and interpretations are for nutters. In the specific case of Google Drive access, I like the Ruby client.
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        The Ruby Client is great for data storage and retrieval, but I meant editing Drive docs (sheets, docs, etc.). Colleagues don't appreciate it when I drop their doc into another editor instead of commenting / recommending corrections in-place
        inopinatus 5y ago
        Oh, for sure. I don't perceive those as websites, though. Sheets and Docs et al are basically thick-client office applications that happen to be written in Javascript. In this circumstance I just use Chrome since it's Google's official runtime. Or the "native" apps on a tablet, which I'd wager are just a packaged variant of the same code. I see this as congruent to the old-school Lotus Notes/Domino architecture, and not really about the web at all. There's no value in being an ideologue about it. My reasons for browsing with JS disabled-by-default are fourfold: 1. to defeat many/most active tracking methods, 2. as a sort of passive ad blocker, 3. because it's very often much faster, and 4. for written content JS dependence is moderately correlated to a poor S:N ratio. None of that has much bearing on an office application.

rkta 5y ago

Sites that require JavaScript do not work in w3m, as w3m does not support JS.

ape4 5y ago
I suppose a command line browser could support JavaScript. Of course non trivial to do.
- yashasolutions 5y ago
  https://edbrowse.org/ https://edbrowse.org/ does support js and is 100% command line - but it's really closer to ed than it is vim in terms of user experience...

daneel_w 5y ago

It comes to a grinding halt, just as it does with sites that use CSS for both enabling content and for its layout.

inopinatus 5y ago

The old-fashioned way: breathe a sigh of relief, and move on to less egregious sites.

shadowgovt 5y ago
It's a nice sentiment, but these days it's almost impossible to conduct business with JavaScript disabled. At least business in the parts of the economy I work in. The moment somebody sends me a Google Drive link (about three times a week), w3m goes back on the shelf and I have to pick up a modern standard-compliant browser.
- bscphil 5y ago
  I don't anyone is suggesting that you should, in practice, adopt w3m or any other text browser as your exclusive way to access web resources.
  - lupire 5y ago
    grandparent comment was suggesting exactly that, with "breathe a sigh of relief".
    - inopinatus 5y ago
      I wrote that remark, and I was not. I’m not even using w3m right now, and observe that the comment I replied to was more general, relating to all browsing without Javascript. Extreme positions and interpretations are for nutters. In the specific case of Google Drive access, I like the Ruby client.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        The Ruby Client is great for data storage and retrieval, but I meant editing Drive docs (sheets, docs, etc.). Colleagues don't appreciate it when I drop their doc into another editor instead of commenting / recommending corrections in-place
        inopinatus 5y ago
        Oh, for sure. I don't perceive those as websites, though. Sheets and Docs et al are basically thick-client office applications that happen to be written in Javascript. In this circumstance I just use Chrome since it's Google's official runtime. Or the "native" apps on a tablet, which I'd wager are just a packaged variant of the same code. I see this as congruent to the old-school Lotus Notes/Domino architecture, and not really about the web at all. There's no value in being an ideologue about it. My reasons for browsing with JS disabled-by-default are fourfold: 1. to defeat many/most active tracking methods, 2. as a sort of passive ad blocker, 3. because it's very often much faster, and 4. for written content JS dependence is moderately correlated to a poor S:N ratio. None of that has much bearing on an office application.