4 ms·

A page that does not load any content with disabled JavaScript: hell no I mean am I the only one that is browsing with completely disabled JS by default? :-D

by _V_ 3y ago

A page that does not load any content with disabled JavaScript: hell no I mean am I the only one that is browsing with completely disabled JS by default? :-D More and more sites don't load anything withnout a JS and I'm not talking about advanced apps like Microsoft Office online...

sundarurfriend 3y ago
There are dozens of us! Dozens! But it's sadly true that more and more pages don't load anything if you have JS disabled. Often, the answer to "is this worth disabling JS for" is no.
- 2b3a51 3y ago
  And yet the page renders text fine in both lynx and links in the terminal. I've noticed that with a few of these 'no javascript means no content in Firefox' Web sites.
- _V_ 3y ago
  I hope that there will be more and more of us :-) Usually when I get empty page I just close the tab and move on. Very rarely the content is so unique and in general worth the hassle anyway. The thing is that you enable JS and it will load bunch of trackers and cookie popups and GDPR popups etc... I just hate that.
Aeolun 3y ago
> I mean am I the only one that is browsing with completely disabled JS by default? :-D I have no patience for that. There’s enough frustration in my life without inflicting more on myself.
- _V_ 3y ago
  The problem is that pages today are waaay too bloated and they use JS to download a bunch of unnecessary crap such as various trackers and "analytics" etc. And with the WebAssembly there is even more tracking the page can do (no thanks!). When I disable JS globally, I genuinely get faster experience on most of the pages.
- sundarurfriend 3y ago
  I find myself far less frustrated with the web with JS disabled than with it enabled by default.
jeroenhd 3y ago
Even worse, the content is right there in the HTML. If you hit the reader mode button, it renders just fine without executing any code. I wonder why you would self sabotage your website like that.
- _V_ 3y ago
  Yeah, I don't really get it. Why screw up your own page deliberately so that it cannot be normally accessed? I mean the amount of actual effort and man-hours put into making something worse is beyond me And I can only imagine, how screwed up internet must be for disabled people that need some kind of reader etc...
- tedunangst 3y ago
  The author has some strong opinions on the appearance of text and doesn't want anything displayed until all fonts and styles are loaded.
  - tremon 3y ago
    Perhaps they should publish an already-typeset image or PDF, not an html webpage, then?

by _V_ 3y ago

sundarurfriend 3y ago

There are dozens of us! Dozens! But it's sadly true that more and more pages don't load anything if you have JS disabled. Often, the answer to "is this worth disabling JS for" is no.

2b3a51 3y ago
And yet the page renders text fine in both lynx and links in the terminal. I've noticed that with a few of these 'no javascript means no content in Firefox' Web sites.
_V_ 3y ago
I hope that there will be more and more of us :-) Usually when I get empty page I just close the tab and move on. Very rarely the content is so unique and in general worth the hassle anyway. The thing is that you enable JS and it will load bunch of trackers and cookie popups and GDPR popups etc... I just hate that.

Aeolun 3y ago

> I mean am I the only one that is browsing with completely disabled JS by default? :-D I have no patience for that. There’s enough frustration in my life without inflicting more on myself.

_V_ 3y ago
The problem is that pages today are waaay too bloated and they use JS to download a bunch of unnecessary crap such as various trackers and "analytics" etc. And with the WebAssembly there is even more tracking the page can do (no thanks!). When I disable JS globally, I genuinely get faster experience on most of the pages.
sundarurfriend 3y ago
I find myself far less frustrated with the web with JS disabled than with it enabled by default.

jeroenhd 3y ago

Even worse, the content is right there in the HTML. If you hit the reader mode button, it renders just fine without executing any code. I wonder why you would self sabotage your website like that.

_V_ 3y ago
Yeah, I don't really get it. Why screw up your own page deliberately so that it cannot be normally accessed? I mean the amount of actual effort and man-hours put into making something worse is beyond me And I can only imagine, how screwed up internet must be for disabled people that need some kind of reader etc...
tedunangst 3y ago
The author has some strong opinions on the appearance of text and doesn't want anything displayed until all fonts and styles are loaded.
- tremon 3y ago
  Perhaps they should publish an already-typeset image or PDF, not an html webpage, then?