3 ms·

As someone who blocks JS by default, don't depend on remotely hosted JS. If I go to example.com and I think it seems truthworthy I might allow scripts to run fr

As someone who blocks JS by default, don't depend on remotely hosted JS. If I go to example.com and I think it seems truthworthy I might allow scripts to run from that domain and that domain only. If the site doesn't work after that, I'll just close the tab and move on. The simple stuff doesn't need bloated frameworks. Don't obfuscate your JS either if you can help it. If I'm not sure if I should be trusting your site I'll be looking over your JS to see what's doing, but I'm not spending more time than it takes to glance over it either. a convenient user experience to me, is one that fails gracefully without JS. Displaying text/images shouldn't need JS at all. I'll accept that it won't be as fancy without it, and I won't hold it against you for having JS as a fancy default, but a site should still be mostly functional without JS. Content at least should remain accessible.

magic_hamster 4y ago
Displaying pictures is one thing. But how are you going to create a dashboard that updates every short interval without JavaScript? Let's say a website serves React from its own domain, so no 3rd party references are used (which in this case it'll be very easy for them to serve you a modified version of the framework), they'd rightfully want to save bandwidth and minimize it! Which means obfuscation as a byproduct. I understand where you're coming from and I do a fair share of blocking myself, but I also see why things are the way they are if you want to develop an online product.
- autoexec 4y ago
  For somethings you really can't help but depend on javascript. I don't really mind it if it's something ambitious enough, it's the display of basic content breaking that bugs me most. A dashboard may still work if you can just display the current data and add a note that because JS is disabled the page must be refreshed manually to pull updated values. You don't even have to throw in a refresh button since the browser's already got one. If I go to a website without JS enabled I expect things to take a bit more work on my part. Minified JS is a problem I run into a lot. Most of the time though, I err on the side of caution and just move on. There's so many interesting things worthy of my attention that if the site full of inscrutable javascript is just a random article/blog post or something shared as a general "hey look at this cool/fun/impressive site" it can easily be abandoned for something less troublesome. For sites I actually do need to access for some reason I can take the time to analyze it properly, but most of the time those kinds of sites are already familiar/trustworthy, and I've got other options too like firing up a less restricted browser in a VM. I certainly don't expect developers to give up using JavaScript for the sake of the few users like me, but the better a site does at keeping content accessible without it the less likely I am to just move on to the next tab.

magic_hamster 4y ago

Displaying pictures is one thing. But how are you going to create a dashboard that updates every short interval without JavaScript? Let's say a website serves React from its own domain, so no 3rd party references are used (which in this case it'll be very easy for them to serve you a modified version of the framework), they'd rightfully want to save bandwidth and minimize it! Which means obfuscation as a byproduct. I understand where you're coming from and I do a fair share of blocking myself, but I also see why things are the way they are if you want to develop an online product.

autoexec 4y ago
For somethings you really can't help but depend on javascript. I don't really mind it if it's something ambitious enough, it's the display of basic content breaking that bugs me most. A dashboard may still work if you can just display the current data and add a note that because JS is disabled the page must be refreshed manually to pull updated values. You don't even have to throw in a refresh button since the browser's already got one. If I go to a website without JS enabled I expect things to take a bit more work on my part. Minified JS is a problem I run into a lot. Most of the time though, I err on the side of caution and just move on. There's so many interesting things worthy of my attention that if the site full of inscrutable javascript is just a random article/blog post or something shared as a general "hey look at this cool/fun/impressive site" it can easily be abandoned for something less troublesome. For sites I actually do need to access for some reason I can take the time to analyze it properly, but most of the time those kinds of sites are already familiar/trustworthy, and I've got other options too like firing up a less restricted browser in a VM. I certainly don't expect developers to give up using JavaScript for the sake of the few users like me, but the better a site does at keeping content accessible without it the less likely I am to just move on to the next tab.