3 ms·

It might be an unpopular opinion, but I think the days when JavaScript was an optional part of the web are past. Now it is an inherent part of the web. We need

It might be an unpopular opinion, but I think the days when JavaScript was an optional part of the web are past. Now it is an inherent part of the web. We need to accept that there is no going back to the days when it was not. Instead of trying to convince websites to design nonscript versions, we should look for solutions on how to make JavaScript safe. I do not have the answer, but sandboxing, security domains, and rich permission models are things worth considering.

pantulis 3y ago
I see people reporting browsing the web with Javascript disabled and I cannot but wonder what is their experience. Not to dismiss them, of course, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what would be of my browsing habits without JS. Perhaps it sounds worse than it really is.
- 8organicbits 3y ago
  I dont think I've heard of anyone avoiding JS completely. TFA mentions using JS. My approach is to use the NoScript extension and only allowlist the minimum to get web apps to run. Most news sites work fine (i.e. are readable) without JS, so often I just see faster page load times and decreased data transfer. Even fewer ads and decreased tracking are great too, but secondary benefits. I don't think my browsing habits are different since adopting this approach. I use NoScript to cut the junk and improve the experience.
- ho_schi 3y ago
  Look at Hackernews, Stackoverflow or Amazon. All of them work perfectly fine without JS! And only Stackoverflow (Markdown Preview) has a reason to use it at all.
- Riverheart 3y ago
  Sounds worse than it is. Most sites work fine without and the ones that absolutely require it will have messages requesting you enable it. Beyond the privacy/security benefits of not running arbitrary code in your browser, the web is a lot faster without JavaScript involved.
fsflover 3y ago
> we should look for solutions on how to make JavaScript safe I'm using Qubes OS, which allows to run many sandboxed Firefox instances, with colorful window frames. I run JavaScript without a fear, since each Firefox runs in its own VM, with no data in it.
handity 3y ago
JavaScript cannot be safe, at least if your threat model involves avoiding a global surveillance panopticon. Allowing arbitrary code execution by default cannot be safe. 90% of what JavaScript is used for is totally unnecessary and only makes sense in an ad-based web.
- fturst 3y ago
  Unnecessary is key. Fancy animations, interaction reminders, cookie popups... they arent "necessary", but they make the experience _mostly_ better for both users (convenience), developers (easier development) AND management. Parent comment is unfortunately right, the web without JS will only be niche platforms designed for the noJS auidence
  - handity 3y ago
    Animations and eyecandy don't require arbitrary code execution and should be handled by css, if at all. Almost all websites can be served as data, with the client free to render it how it chooses, which enables far more elegant and unified UIs than anything we have now. Windows Phone 7 was a brilliant example of this. It was one last attempt by a large player to unite social media sites and messengers into one UI and interaction framework, and it was the most fluid, beautiful and pleasant OS I've used. Now that kind of interoperability would be borderline illegal. When you strip control away from devs about how their data is rendered, the results are generally more beautiful, not less. I'm guessing that interaction reminders are those modals that appear when you go to close the tab, or prompt you to subscribe when scrolling down further. I would classify both as totally unnecessary and making the experience worse for users. They also do not require arbitrary code execution. Cookie popups are a result of the ad-centered, panopticon-enabling web. I know what I'm describing is far and above nojs. What I'm trying to get at is the motivation for disabling js, and what the web would look that if that principle were followed to it's logical conclusion.
throw7 3y ago
You're not wrong saying that javascript is pretty much mandatory, but it's more de facto. To come out and mandate it would be wrong. Unfortunately the web is in a state that's worse than just javascript... it's regressed into only supporting certain browsers cough chrome cough. Just one example (i've got more personally) from recently: you can't book flights in air india's website with firefox, but it works in chrome.

pantulis 3y ago

I see people reporting browsing the web with Javascript disabled and I cannot but wonder what is their experience. Not to dismiss them, of course, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what would be of my browsing habits without JS. Perhaps it sounds worse than it really is.

8organicbits 3y ago
I dont think I've heard of anyone avoiding JS completely. TFA mentions using JS. My approach is to use the NoScript extension and only allowlist the minimum to get web apps to run. Most news sites work fine (i.e. are readable) without JS, so often I just see faster page load times and decreased data transfer. Even fewer ads and decreased tracking are great too, but secondary benefits. I don't think my browsing habits are different since adopting this approach. I use NoScript to cut the junk and improve the experience.
ho_schi 3y ago
Look at Hackernews, Stackoverflow or Amazon. All of them work perfectly fine without JS! And only Stackoverflow (Markdown Preview) has a reason to use it at all.
Riverheart 3y ago
Sounds worse than it is. Most sites work fine without and the ones that absolutely require it will have messages requesting you enable it. Beyond the privacy/security benefits of not running arbitrary code in your browser, the web is a lot faster without JavaScript involved.

fsflover 3y ago

> we should look for solutions on how to make JavaScript safe I'm using Qubes OS, which allows to run many sandboxed Firefox instances, with colorful window frames. I run JavaScript without a fear, since each Firefox runs in its own VM, with no data in it.

handity 3y ago

JavaScript cannot be safe, at least if your threat model involves avoiding a global surveillance panopticon. Allowing arbitrary code execution by default cannot be safe. 90% of what JavaScript is used for is totally unnecessary and only makes sense in an ad-based web.

fturst 3y ago
Unnecessary is key. Fancy animations, interaction reminders, cookie popups... they arent "necessary", but they make the experience _mostly_ better for both users (convenience), developers (easier development) AND management. Parent comment is unfortunately right, the web without JS will only be niche platforms designed for the noJS auidence
- handity 3y ago
  Animations and eyecandy don't require arbitrary code execution and should be handled by css, if at all. Almost all websites can be served as data, with the client free to render it how it chooses, which enables far more elegant and unified UIs than anything we have now. Windows Phone 7 was a brilliant example of this. It was one last attempt by a large player to unite social media sites and messengers into one UI and interaction framework, and it was the most fluid, beautiful and pleasant OS I've used. Now that kind of interoperability would be borderline illegal. When you strip control away from devs about how their data is rendered, the results are generally more beautiful, not less. I'm guessing that interaction reminders are those modals that appear when you go to close the tab, or prompt you to subscribe when scrolling down further. I would classify both as totally unnecessary and making the experience worse for users. They also do not require arbitrary code execution. Cookie popups are a result of the ad-centered, panopticon-enabling web. I know what I'm describing is far and above nojs. What I'm trying to get at is the motivation for disabling js, and what the web would look that if that principle were followed to it's logical conclusion.

throw7 3y ago

You're not wrong saying that javascript is pretty much mandatory, but it's more de facto. To come out and mandate it would be wrong. Unfortunately the web is in a state that's worse than just javascript... it's regressed into only supporting certain browsers cough chrome cough. Just one example (i've got more personally) from recently: you can't book flights in air india's website with firefox, but it works in chrome.