10 ms·

Don't tell me how to enable JavaScript

203 points by Wilya 15y ago

packynix 15y ago
it's 2012 and you should just enable javascript.
- huragok 15y ago
  At worst, run it in anonymous browsing mode.
- ajuc 15y ago
  "Dear user, change your browsing habits to save us a few hours of work"
  - rodh257 15y ago
    I think you're underestimating the amount of work that is required to cater for those with JS turned off, each new feature would need to keep that in mind, it would need to be designed for and UX tested. Scenarios where you wan to rely on javascript need to have a fallback, each change needs to be tested in a noscript environment. In my opinion with the multitude of great new JS libraries (particularly knockout, backbone etc) and JS browser features we're going past it being as simple as progressively enhancing your site. If you are a startup trying to do things in a lean fashion it must be hard to justify.
    - masklinn 15y ago
      > I think you're underestimating the amount of work that is required to cater for those with JS turned off This is highly dependent on a number of factors, mostly: * The kind of site we're talking about, if this is a real-time chat application it makes sense that it can't work without JS, if this is a company site or a presentation site for an appstore application with an embedded video and you can't make it work without JS you don't know what you're doing. * Whether this was considered from the beginning or whoever built the site just went wild with javascript without consideration. And even in the first section of the first case, if the unlogged account-less front page can't work without javascript I'll probably still think you don't know what you're doing.
    - EvilTerran 15y ago
      This ties back to the point of the submission -- if you can't make your site work without JS, at least tell the users with JS disabled why you need them to let yours through.
    - ajuc 15y ago
      I meant a few hours should be plenty of time to write one paragraph about what your site does, and insert it into noscript tag on your main page.
- icebraining 15y ago
  That's up to each user to decide. We (NoScript users) have our reasons to keep it disabled by default. You may not agree with them, but it's our choice. If you have a site, it's your choice to either ignore us (like the Google Blogs) or not, but if you don't want to, then the author has a point: tells us why, not how.
  - TylerE 15y ago
    Let me let you in on a little secret. We don't want you. I'm dead serious. If you're blocking our ads, and not even allowing us to count you as a visitor by blocking our analytics code, we'd really just as soon NOT have you burning up our server's CPU and using our bandwidth.
    - motoford 15y ago
      Maybe we are blocking your ads and analytics until we see if we want you. Just who is needing who here ?
    - tobiasu 15y ago
      I have yet to see a share of your revenue for enabling Javascript. Oh, you want it all to yourself?
      - talmand 15y ago
        I don't understand. Are you saying you want to consume the website's content and then share in the revenue they manage to generate from you?
        tobiasu 15y ago
        I supplied electricity, a computer, internet connection, and a virtual machine to run code in (that's a business model by itself). I may have profited from the content, but I surely have generated revenue for the site operator. And I want a part of it, isn't that reasonable for my time and cost? I'm just as much a capitalist as the site owner. I know my visit to their site has value to them, regardless of the content. We could argue whether they paid me enough in content. But the automatic assumption that this is true isn't acceptable. In fact, the worst and most successful offenders in this business model usually provide the lowest value and often no value at all. See link farms and other blog spam/scams. If it isn't obvious: this is a thought experiment. I'm not actually demanding my 0.0037 cents/view.
- chris_wot 15y ago
  With respect, the "it's 2012..." argument should really go like this: "it's 2012, and you should be able to develop a website without any real need for Javascript." The only times I can see the need for Javascript is to enable something totally compelling that requires the use of it - like an amazing animation that needs JS, or something like this.
earnubs 15y ago
Suggestion for your CSS: body { font-size: 14px; line-height:1.4 }
- MattBearman 15y ago
  Please do this! I had to zoom in quite far on my 13" mpb just to make the site comfortable to read
dazzawazza 15y ago
I started reading this thinking what a complete dick but on reflection they are right. It's as hard to show a feature list and ask to be white listed as it is to redirect to http://www.enable-javascript.com/ http://www.enable-javascript.com/. Well said. Thank you.
- drostie 15y ago
  There is perhaps a lesson here. Hopkins said it this way[1]: Each mortal thing does one thing and the same: Deals out that being indoors each one dwells ...and he then calls for humanity to rise above this standard case. It is functional, if sub-optimal[2], for how we can organize society: every single person complains about what bugs them, and we connect the social graph dynamically to make people happier -- the people who want a NoScript user's business will design with them in mind, the people who don't care enough, won't. I would add that this applies not just to JavaScript but also to cookies. We use NoScript and Cookie Monster because they're condoms for the Internet -- they protect us from tracking cookies and some XSS attacks. The web site for Priv.ly unfortunately breaks when you use NoScript. The reason for the break is to make four links appear when you mouse over an image which is hiding them, and then those links load videos into that element. Basically, the element is an iframe for videos, except they didn't use an iframe. It would have been faster to develop if they had just used an iframe to load their videos, and then their videos could probably be covered by a NoScript exception for Vimeo. If the site didn't break, it would say, "You do not have scripts enabled, which means you are either running old technology, or are our kind of person. If you are the latter, we hope you will consider helping out." This is almost very nice and polite -- but please, skip the crap about "running old technology" when you follow-up on this example, and instead just condense the content which you were going to show me into a short summary with a nice little end point, "to see my app, please enable JavaScript." If your app is its own summary, like a blog article, then you absolutely should not require JS to display it. [1]: http://www.bartleby.com/122/34.html http://www.bartleby.com/122/34.html "As Kingfishers Catch Fire" [2]: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/david_logan_on_tribal_leadership.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/david_logan_on_tribal_leade... "Different Stages of Tribes"
Pewpewarrows 15y ago
Here is how I handle this for projects that I work on, and I haven't received a single complaint thus far: 1. Decide if the core of the site is undoable without JavaScript. Something like Google Docs or games relying heavily on Canvas/WebGL are prime examples. It is very rare for this to be the case, but if it is then disregard the rest of the steps. 2. Build the entire site without even considering JavaScript as an option. The advantage of this is I can finish all functionality without opening my browser window once. I build out the core with unit tests, and assert the base user workflow using integration tests that can simulate things like form submissions to route end-points. My test suite is now a constant confirmation that my site works with JavaScript disabled. 3. Open up the site in a browser, and begin the design & UX portion of development. Because the site is essentially feature-complete and tested already, I can have a lot of fun experimenting in this stage, tweaking things to my heart's content. 4. I slap this on the page after I'm satisfied with the enhanced UX that design and client-side scripting provides: <div class="jsnotice"> We notice that you currently have Javascript disabled. While this site is fully accessible without it, you're still missing out on some pretty neat features. We work tirelessly to ensure that our scripts are small, unobtrusive, and do not harm your user experience. Please add us to your whitelist, or <a href="//enable-javascript.com/">enable Javascript in your browser</a>! </div> Using Modernizr, that class only shows if JavaScript is disabled. The message itself is unobtrusive, and I always provide a way for the user to dismiss it permanently. If I want, I go into a little bit of detail on what "features" they're not experiencing fully.
- goodside 15y ago
  What percentage of your users actually have JavaScript disabled? How small would the user base have to be before you decided they weren't worth this much effort?
  - XLcommerce 15y ago
    That's an important question to answer. Creating a site that works sans js then layering on js is great, but it does entail duplication of effort, a larger testing burden etc. It's important to work out if the ROI for going the extra mile makes good business sense. Especially given the (excellent) point the original post makes: if a user has turned off js then if your app is worth their time they'll find the js switch again without difficulties.
marcusf 15y ago
Honest question: How large is the noscript population? If I were to chose where to invest my time, catering to the noscript crowd would probably come pretty low on my list of priorities.
- toni 15y ago
  I think the premise of the OP is not so much "Your site should work perfectly without Javascript because I'm an arrogant prick" but more in the lines of "Earn my respect and don't treat me like an idiot, and I will gladly whitelist your site and will use it with Javascript enabled". If I understand it correctly, OP was redirected to a dumb-down instruction page of how to enable Javascript in his browser. What he actually wants is the reason "why" he must enable Javascript for the site. You can win over noscript population very easily by taking a little bit of time and explaining your app with some amazing screenshots.
  - marcusf 15y ago
    Don't get me wrong: I don't disagree with the sentiment, I'm just saying I doubt I'd even put in the effort of redirecting them to a separate page of any kind if I'd decided that my landing pages should be very javascript heavy. My prejudiced view is that it's such a small part of the population it's not worth caring about, though I'd be glad to be proven wrong. If doing pages that require javascript to even run in the first place is a good idea, I think is a different discussion.
    - EvilTerran 15y ago
      <noscript>To enjoy all this awesomesauce, please enable javascript: <img src="/annotated_representative_screenshot_you_should_already_have_for_the_tutorial_page.png" /> </noscript> Wave some CSS at it to center it nicely; done.
    - toni 15y ago
      "My prejudiced view is that it's such a small part of the population it's not worth caring about, though I'd be glad to be proven wrong." It also depends greatly on the kind of web app you are making. If your audience is highly tech-savvy then caring about noscript population will increase your userbase.
ojr 15y ago
Complaining about enabling javascript on tumblr, a site that has many javascript functions built into their blog system by default is an oxymoron. Generation Y and our "evil" javascript enabled browsers will take over Generation X in years to come.
- marginalboy 15y ago
  I think you missed the point. The author clearly stated he was willing to whitelist a site he wants to use. There are good reasons for someone not to browse arbitrary sites with JS enabled by default if they choose, from security to memory management...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
aGHz 15y ago
The OP missed the point: it's a passive aggressive way to get you off the site and hope you never come back. We're already focusing all our energy on convincing normal people why our app is awesome, convincing you why you should also enable JS to enjoy it is very low on the priority list. Not to mention that I already have to test my site in 4 browsers, you want me to now test it for a very small edge case too? How entitled is that?
- EvilTerran 15y ago
  Entitled? You're the one who stands to profit from the interaction. You do the legwork.
  - Sumaso 15y ago
    And by the leg work you mean omit instructions on how to enable java-script? Seems a little silly to me, if you know java-script is disabled then you should just ignore the link.
    - EvilTerran 15y ago
      I mean "a least give the no-JS crowd a reason to let your scripts run". As the submission suggested.
      - msbarnett 15y ago
        "So that the site will work" is no less insulting to their intelligence, at the end of the day. They know exactly why it isn't working, and if they want to see it work they're welcome to fix it. But asking for a custom-crafted marketing pitch job aimed at converting a small and pathologically hostile market of noscripters is completely outside the realm of feasibility, here.
- XLcommerce 15y ago
  How was the original author acting entitled? He's merely saying that instead of insulting his intelligence just give him some screenshots and info about your app in the noscript. If your app is worth it he'll flick the js switch to the on position.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
tomkin 15y ago
I have a completely different viewpoint on this topic that probably won't be very popular – but, if we're talking about writing experiences for those with JS turned off, isn't that the same as having to write code for an IE6 experience? I imagine the percentage of people having JS turned off is roughly in the ballpark of how many IE6 users we have left to deal with. Why has this been turned into a purist argument when it really should be about practicality and quality of one's work? Though, I do get the gripe about not even seeing what the site is about before enabling JS. Even the weakest IE6 experiences seem to have some semblance of the subject matter.
- EvilTerran 15y ago
  Well... dealing with IE6 involves a lot of working around quirks in its treatment of plain ol' HTML and CSS, even if the site's completely static. Dealing with the no-JS crowd wouldn't entail that at all, so at least it should be an easier sliver of the market to cater to than the IE6 crowd.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > if we're talking about writing experiences for those with JS turned off, isn't that the same as having to write code for an IE6 experience? Not quite: the major issue with IE6 is that it fucks things up by providing partial implementations. A no-scripted browser "just" provides no scripting, static content and styling are perfectly handled just not additional behaviors. These are very, very different situations.
  - tomkin 15y ago
    I agree with that, that they are very different. What I'm saying is, if you're going to start coding for minor audiences – where do you draw the line? And how would you explain to your client/employer that you will take extra care to make sure people with no JS get love but IE6 users get Chrome Frame/redirect?
    - EvilTerran 15y ago
      Where you draw the line isn't just about fractions of the market, though -- it's about market fraction ÷ effort to implement. If there's twice as many IE6 users as no-JS users, but it takes ten times as much work to get your site functioning on IE6 than on a modern browser with no JS, you're better off courting the no-JS segment.
thaumaturgy 15y ago
Ideally, sure, sites should try to fall back more gracefully than that if JS is disabled. But I'll bet that there are more IE 6 users than Noscript users.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > sites should try to fall back more gracefully than that if JS is disabled. They may not be able to though, take something like Etherpad there is very little value it can provide when javascript is disabled so being upfront about it makes sense. An other acceptable excuse is not having the manpower to handle both experiences correctly. Of course, the most common case is likely that they can't be arsed.
- ticks 15y ago
  It's one of those "live by the sword, die by the sword" issues as far as I'm concerned. At least with IE6, a lot of people are stuck with it due to locked-down corporate networks; whereas with JS, people who are opting-out should blame themselves - unless I'm missing an obvious web browser that doesn't support it? That said, I too offer minimal support for non-JS'ers.
  - dhume 15y ago
    with JS, people who are opting-out should blame themselves No, I'm going to continue to blame that subset of JS coders who consume far too much of my CPU/memory resources. Thanks to them, I got to watch my browser slow to a crawl and become so unresponsive that it was difficult to even close the tab containing the offending site. The simplest solution is to have JS off by default. A whitelist system is nice for non-offending sites (I've never had this sort of trouble with JS on, say, HN).
    - Drbble 15y ago
      Try a multithreading browser, such as, all of them?
- glanch 15y ago
  I used to be a Noscript user, but I just got sick and tired of clicking 2-3x as much as usual, just to get every page to load correctly. Normal process: -Page loads, great -Click on something but it doesn't respond -Shit, probably JS -Click NoScript, see a list of sites =This is where is really gets good= -Stare at the list of sites noscript is blocking on the page, arbitrarily unblock one that 'seems' like it would be hosting the code that runs the thing I'm trying to fix, based only on domain name -Refresh the page, try clicking that thing again, if it doesn't work, repeat the process I wasted many hours of my life on that process, and what did I gain from it? Security? Not really, since I would randomly enable sites to run JS. So I uninstalled it. Worst case scenario, I get a virus and have to reformat, and lose an hour or two. I don't have any important data on my hard drive. So, Noscripters, are you guys just really concerned about security or is it a psychological thing - as in, it feels good to be able to be the boss of your browser and tell sites whether or not they can run JS?
kaichanvong 15y ago
I now `know` that this guy has the name Lisp.
leephillips 15y ago
Ten years ago, the web was HTML and CSS with javascript as a optional extra. It seems to me that the web has evolved into a communications and app-delivery medium where HTML, CSS, and javascript are all first-class citizens. I understand why some still block js, but I think this will soon make as much sense as blocking HTML.
debacle 15y ago
If you've got JavaScript disabled, no one is interested in catering to you. You are the pathological customer in the ad-driven content consumption world of the Internet. It's impossible to make money off of you. Sure, you enable JavaScript but you don't disable AdBlock and so now you're just consuming resources and contributing negatively to the site you're visiting's bottom line. I understand the myriad justifications for disabling JavaScript, but I don't really care. There aren't enough people with JavaScript disabled to warrant giving it any attention. It's the same with Flash. If you don't have Flash, I will show you how to get it, but I'm not going to spend the time telling you why you ought to get it, because I don't care to argue the point. There aren't enough people without Flash for it to be a concern.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Sure, you enable JavaScript but you don't disable AdBlock I'm the opposite: I run NoScript but not AdBlock.
  - EvilTerran 15y ago
    Likewise. AdBlock feels slightly scummy to me - it's going out of your way to subvert the site's business model. NoScript doesn't automatically discriminate between ads and content, which feels... fairer. In fact, if I like your site, and it happens that NoScript is blocking your ads, I'll make a point of letting them through. http://www.projectwonderful.com/ http://www.projectwonderful.com/ is on my whitelist, for instance.
    - mistercow 15y ago
      >it's going out of your way to subvert the site's business model When people sneak snacks into a movie theater they are not thinking "I am going to subvert this theater's business model". They are thinking "The normal way of getting snacks at the theater is unacceptable to me". The same is true with AdBlock. Nobody thinks "Mwahahaha, I'm going to financially ruin some content creators." They think "if I see one more punch-the-monkey ad, I'm going to punch an actual monkey". I mute TV commercials, I change the station on the radio when the commercials start, and I use AdBlock by default. If I really like a site, I will turn AdBlock off and see if its ads are acceptable. Usually, though, I turn it right back on.
16s 15y ago
Many people don't understand the distinction between client-side and server-side. Javascript typically runs on your computer. I know that it seems to be out there on the Web, but it's not. It's running locally on your computer. It's using your CPU and your memory. It's important that normal people understand this. Edit: We disable Javascript because we don't want other people running code on our computers without our consent or knowledge while we browse the Web. Edit2: Here is some Javascript to peg a client's CPU (this can be malicious or accidental, but either way it's why I run Javascript blockers): <script type="text/javascript"> function burn_cpu(y) { var x = 0; while ( x != y ) { x = x+1; } } burn_cpu(99999999); </script>
- gregory80 15y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your argument. JS is bad b/c it's client side? Doesnt that paint all fat clients and every piece of software before the "web" in the same light?
  - tobiasu 15y ago
    With one difference: You install traditional software by choice. On the web, you don't have a choice, everyone can just install and execute whatever they please.
  - 16s 15y ago
    No it doesn't. JS runs automatically on my computer when I visit a website. By default our browsers execute it automatically. This is wrong. They do not ask for permission or check for signed code or offer any protection at all. JS infections are so rampant that a name has been given to it (drive by infections) as all you have to do is visit a website and its malicious JS runs on your computer and does the rest. Delivering malware via JS is now the cybercriminal’s favored means of attack.
Jach 15y ago
What a wordy way to get across the point. Here's a tl;dr: If your webpage doesn't display anything without javascript, or if it doesn't display anything except "please enable javascript" or "here's a link to tell you how to enable javascript", then please take the extra minute to add something like the following to your webpage: <noscript><span style="color:red">This site about X requires scripting because Y.</span></noscript> That's it, shortening/assuming context/lengthening as desired. Warning that your site will/will not be using your browser to mine bitcoins for the owner is optional. Recoding your site so it works with lynx is also optional and fine, if you really want to, but it's not what's being asked.
ebbv 15y ago
> someone who wants JS to be off or blocked. Someone who is thus actually pretty tech-savvy I disagree. Anyone who has JS disabled in 2012 is not tech savvy. They are a paranoid weirdo. They're the guy who refuses to buy a TV even though the Wire, Breaking Bad and Justified are on. Nobody should have to waste their time trying to convince you to be sane.
- EvilTerran 15y ago
  Setting aside your vacuous insult-flinging... Fobbing someone off to a patronising "how to enable JS" page is more of a waste of time than showing them a screenshot & paragraph description of what they're missing out on. It's about as much effort, and drives them away, while giving them a preview may actually earn you a customer - the very opposite of "wasting time".
- jimminy 15y ago
  So it's more sane to spend money just so that you can waste several dozen hours a year watching these shows, that will have ultimately no consequence in your life. If you want to do that it's absolutely fine, but there is no reason to deride someone for their views just because they don't match your own decisions. P.S. I love Breaking Bad and Justified, but I don't have a need for a TV any more, still have one, but rarely turn it on. If I want to watch them, I just go to Amazon/iTunes/Netflix/Hulu and stream them.
- Lockyy 15y ago
  "Refuses to buy a TV even though -snipped- is on." Forgetting about Netflix on your pc are you? In fact, watching shows on a specific channel as opposed to via an on demand service such as Netflix is actually a worse experience. Because I watch things when the TV channel decides, as opposed to when I want to watch things. I have a TV. I haven't switched the channel off of my ps3 once. Everything I could ever want to watch is on there.
  - Tooluka 15y ago
    Netflix, really? The one with "Sorry, we are not available in our country" label on the homepage? Sure, all those good (and bad) series are also unavailable on TV in my country :) ... PS: just about every legal streaming site is unavailable outside USA. Or outside 10-15 premium countries in best case.
mortenjorck 15y ago
This just boils down to a question of understanding your audience and communicating with them appropriately. The simple takeaway is that disabling JavaScript tends to correlate with tech savvy, and so addressing these users as non-technical comes off as condescending and results in blog posts like these. If I'm building something JS-only, I try to speak the NoScript user's language when writing the error copy, even attempting to build a bit of rapport, like here: http://presteign.com http://presteign.com [EDIT] Something has apparently gone wrong in the last couple of days with the dynamic content loading on the site linked above, so I've put a maintenance page in its place. The <noscript> message was: This site needs JavaScript enabled to work. At least it's not Flash, right?
- mratzloff 15y ago
  While you were busy building a rapport with the handful of noscript visitors you forgot to test your site on the iPhone. Your site actually locks up Mobile Safari on iPhone 4S with the latest iOS. I have to manually kill the browser and restart it!
  - mortenjorck 15y ago
    Wow, thanks for calling my attention to that – it's actually not just iOS; something has gone terribly wrong with the dynamic content loading (it's the same on every browser). It worked fine for five months and was working a few days ago; something must have changed on the server. I just updated the parent comment with a warning.
    - chris_wot 15y ago
      Sorted now? When I flip my iPad from portrait to landscape the text is no longer centered :-(
- tobiasu 15y ago
  There is no info what I'm missing. Anyway I tried to take a look at it: Enabled the site in NoScript and all I get is a very buggy menu. OK, lets give you cookies, real referrer, etc. Still not working?? Just for you, I've made a brand-new Firefox 11 profile with no extensions and all default settings. The site refreshes every second, spewing warnings in the JS console. It looks broken and I still don't know what it is about. Whether a site this simple really needs JS is another discussion...
madhadron 15y ago
A particularly egregious one: I went to download Google Chrome with links (the text mode browser). Google's download page for Chrome requires JavaScript. I know Google has been falling apart, but really?
teliskr 15y ago
Using the web without JS is pointless. Just turn it on.
NelsonMinar 15y ago
There's one very important user who doesn't run Javascript: Googlebot. If your site displays no content without scripting you are invisible to search engines. So this blog post's advice to display some static fallback is useful; not for the NoScript weirdos but for SEO. Hopefully the search engines will fix their spiders. In the meantime we have ugly workarounds like the #!/escaped_fragment nonsense.
- lucian1900 15y ago
  Although this is a fair point, even the googlebot has started running JS.
  - NelsonMinar 15y ago
    Yeah, it does execute some JS, but not a lot. Here's a Dec 2011 analysis; a more current writeup would be welcome. http://www.distilled.net/blog/seo/google-stop-playing-the-jig-is-still-up-guest-post/ http://www.distilled.net/blog/seo/google-stop-playing-the-ji...
- Drbble 15y ago
  And Googlebot the indexes content, not apps. As long as you don't use Google's broken blog platform (ha, irony) your blog with your content works fine without JS, creating SEO juice for your JS app.
sohn 15y ago
Arrogant.
cnbeuiwx 15y ago
This got me thinking of Engadget and how they actually WARN the user if they have 3rd party cookies disabled (!) when reading comments: "Warning: A browser setting is preventing you from logging in. Fix this setting to log in" Sigh.
drewmclellan 15y ago
Thinking about users with JavaScript disabled is unhelpful. Sure, some of those exist, but they've largely opted into that. It's more helpful to think about designing a site to work robustly for the situations in which JavaScript doesn't successfully run. There could be reasons from aggressive firewalls blocking scripts, to slow or broken network connections, where the user might not get your JavaScript along with the page. Many browsers halt all JavaScript execution on a script error. All it takes is a badly coded third-party ad on your page, or a typo in your own code to stop all JavaScript on the page from running. Is it right that your page or app should completely stop functioning at that point? The web is a brittle platform. Things break all the time, but our technology stack of HTML, CSS and JavaScript can be exceptionally robust when used in the right way. Build your site with HTML. Make it look much better with CSS. Make it work much better with JavaScript. Be prepared that CSS or JavaScript may not load at any point, with the reassurance that plain old HTML has got your back. Sure, it takes a bit longer. Doing a good job always does.
- attackio 15y ago
  sure, let's all code for lynx. it's the future!
  - fr3aky 15y ago
    sure, there's nothing in between.
  - growdigital 15y ago
    Lynx. Then IE6. Then Firefox, Chrome etc.
  - t1mmyb 15y ago
    Point spectacularly missed. Well done.
- thefricky 15y ago
  Progressive Enhancement is the name of the game. Still wondering why so many people ignore this
cientifico 15y ago
You are not part of my target users. Sorry and goodbye. As long as I normally focus on the 80% of the users, and more that 80% of my users use javascript, I have to say, that you are not part of my target. I don't have the money to make an app for the user with a normal browser (including mobile), and the user with IE, ups, sorry, the users without javascript. Buy a better computer
- LinXitoW 15y ago
  I get the sentiment(and i'm right there with ya), but the author isn't asking for your whole website to work without JS, just to display some very basic, static stuff without Javascript. Hell, even just ignoring that JS is missing might be a better solution. That way, the user at least gets to look at the HTML and CSS, which will probably still convey enough information about the website. I really don't understand why anyone'd even react to missing JS. Anyone willfully turning it off will be aware of that.
lucb1e 15y ago
To comment on the story: Yes, I have browsed without remembering that I had it disabled. Briefly, I guess a minute or five. Then I started missing things. Javascript is to enhance the web, the crux of all webapps. Going around to disable it, then enable it for half the websites you encounter, kinda seems overkill to me. I definitely see the advantages though. It's much faster, and you don't get disturbed by anything. Ideally I'd automatically get every article I go to from HN trough readability first. But doing that is slower than just letting my computer load the thousands of lines of JS, and not everything from HN is text. I can live with the nonsense on the page as long as adblock plus is turned on. Actually every news website should go trough readability, or at least get the "share it with your friends on Facebook, G+, Twitter, email, print, delicious, stumbleupon, digg, or by direct link" blocked by adblock plus. But disabling Javascript just for this? My website also has a message for people who don't have Javascript enabled. It does aim for an average user who doesn't know he has it enabled since one of the priorities is to get the broadest possible compatibility, but that's just one sentence linking you to where you can read more if you want to. One of the things I promise in the more info is that my Javascript won't ever be intrusive in any way. For example I use it to load Disqus comments, or to toggle visibility of fields when you click something. JS is not required to navigate or get all content though.
ww520 15y ago
I actually use YesScript rather than NoScript to selectively disable Javascript for certain sites rather than disable for all sites. It works pretty well.
nemo 15y ago
Disabling JavaScript doesn't strike me as "tech-savvy", it strikes me as "paranoid."
VMG 15y ago
Don't tell me how to write my sites.
tlrobinson 15y ago
I agree you should tell users why they should enable JavaScript, but sheesh, don't take it personally. "Someone who is thus actually pretty tech-savvy, and who actually took the time to wade through his browser’s configuration to find the switch to turn off javascript." Or someone who's nephew decided to install AdBlock and NoScript along with antivirus software when they were cleaning up their computer.
batista 15y ago
>On the other hand, what is the profile of the typical guy browsing with JS off or blocked ? I’m going to surprise you: someone who wants JS to be off or blocked. Someone who is thus actually pretty tech-savvy, and who actually took the time to wade through his browser’s configuration to find the switch to turn off javascript. Or someone who uses NoScript, or equivalent browser extension. I'd go with "someone kooky, wearing a tin-foil hat, a tiny minority, and very unlikely to be interested in what I'm selling anyway".
jakejake 15y ago
My feeling is that if you have JavaScript disabled, then you know what you're doing and you're used to sites not loading or functioning properly. If you can't enable it (ie screen reader) then unfortunately there's no point in saying "please enable JavaScript" in the noscript.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mixmastamyk 15y ago
Agreed. I'll usually enable first-party js on a new site, provided it shows something compelling on load and the js import list isn't too sleazy. I don't use adblockers per se and welcome them if they are polite, respect privacy, and something I'm interested in.
derekprior 15y ago
Okay, I won't tell you to enable JavaScript. Can I tell you to bump up your blog's font size?
npsimons 15y ago
To all those who are saying "forget the people with JS disabled", I'd like to remind them that attention is scarce; information is not. Do the math. Sure, we may not account for very many people. We may not be "important" in your world. But I can tell you that when I encounter a website that doesn't work without JS, or balks at my filtering/anonymizing/caching proxy (with custom user-agent), I go elsewhere. I don't forward the URI of that site, or bookmark it. I forget about it. It doesn't exist to me. There are likely a dozen other similar sites willing to get my business or attention. I have no time or patience to waste on people who want me to jump through hoops just to see their sales pitch. To be sure, I turn on Javascript for some sites, but it's a pretty high bar that has to be met. Requiring Javascript to read a blog does not meet that bar. This article is right on the money.

203 points by Wilya 15y ago

packynix 15y ago

it's 2012 and you should just enable javascript.

huragok 15y ago
At worst, run it in anonymous browsing mode.
ajuc 15y ago
"Dear user, change your browsing habits to save us a few hours of work"
- rodh257 15y ago
  I think you're underestimating the amount of work that is required to cater for those with JS turned off, each new feature would need to keep that in mind, it would need to be designed for and UX tested. Scenarios where you wan to rely on javascript need to have a fallback, each change needs to be tested in a noscript environment. In my opinion with the multitude of great new JS libraries (particularly knockout, backbone etc) and JS browser features we're going past it being as simple as progressively enhancing your site. If you are a startup trying to do things in a lean fashion it must be hard to justify.
  - masklinn 15y ago
    > I think you're underestimating the amount of work that is required to cater for those with JS turned off This is highly dependent on a number of factors, mostly: * The kind of site we're talking about, if this is a real-time chat application it makes sense that it can't work without JS, if this is a company site or a presentation site for an appstore application with an embedded video and you can't make it work without JS you don't know what you're doing. * Whether this was considered from the beginning or whoever built the site just went wild with javascript without consideration. And even in the first section of the first case, if the unlogged account-less front page can't work without javascript I'll probably still think you don't know what you're doing.
  - EvilTerran 15y ago
    This ties back to the point of the submission -- if you can't make your site work without JS, at least tell the users with JS disabled why you need them to let yours through.
  - ajuc 15y ago
    I meant a few hours should be plenty of time to write one paragraph about what your site does, and insert it into noscript tag on your main page.
icebraining 15y ago
That's up to each user to decide. We (NoScript users) have our reasons to keep it disabled by default. You may not agree with them, but it's our choice. If you have a site, it's your choice to either ignore us (like the Google Blogs) or not, but if you don't want to, then the author has a point: tells us why, not how.
- TylerE 15y ago
  Let me let you in on a little secret. We don't want you. I'm dead serious. If you're blocking our ads, and not even allowing us to count you as a visitor by blocking our analytics code, we'd really just as soon NOT have you burning up our server's CPU and using our bandwidth.
  - motoford 15y ago
    Maybe we are blocking your ads and analytics until we see if we want you. Just who is needing who here ?
  - tobiasu 15y ago
    I have yet to see a share of your revenue for enabling Javascript. Oh, you want it all to yourself?
    - talmand 15y ago
      I don't understand. Are you saying you want to consume the website's content and then share in the revenue they manage to generate from you?
      - tobiasu 15y ago
        I supplied electricity, a computer, internet connection, and a virtual machine to run code in (that's a business model by itself). I may have profited from the content, but I surely have generated revenue for the site operator. And I want a part of it, isn't that reasonable for my time and cost? I'm just as much a capitalist as the site owner. I know my visit to their site has value to them, regardless of the content. We could argue whether they paid me enough in content. But the automatic assumption that this is true isn't acceptable. In fact, the worst and most successful offenders in this business model usually provide the lowest value and often no value at all. See link farms and other blog spam/scams. If it isn't obvious: this is a thought experiment. I'm not actually demanding my 0.0037 cents/view.
chris_wot 15y ago
With respect, the "it's 2012..." argument should really go like this: "it's 2012, and you should be able to develop a website without any real need for Javascript." The only times I can see the need for Javascript is to enable something totally compelling that requires the use of it - like an amazing animation that needs JS, or something like this.

earnubs 15y ago

Suggestion for your CSS: body { font-size: 14px; line-height:1.4 }

MattBearman 15y ago
Please do this! I had to zoom in quite far on my 13" mpb just to make the site comfortable to read

dazzawazza 15y ago

I started reading this thinking what a complete dick but on reflection they are right. It's as hard to show a feature list and ask to be white listed as it is to redirect to http://www.enable-javascript.com/ http://www.enable-javascript.com/. Well said. Thank you.

drostie 15y ago
There is perhaps a lesson here. Hopkins said it this way[1]: Each mortal thing does one thing and the same: Deals out that being indoors each one dwells ...and he then calls for humanity to rise above this standard case. It is functional, if sub-optimal[2], for how we can organize society: every single person complains about what bugs them, and we connect the social graph dynamically to make people happier -- the people who want a NoScript user's business will design with them in mind, the people who don't care enough, won't. I would add that this applies not just to JavaScript but also to cookies. We use NoScript and Cookie Monster because they're condoms for the Internet -- they protect us from tracking cookies and some XSS attacks. The web site for Priv.ly unfortunately breaks when you use NoScript. The reason for the break is to make four links appear when you mouse over an image which is hiding them, and then those links load videos into that element. Basically, the element is an iframe for videos, except they didn't use an iframe. It would have been faster to develop if they had just used an iframe to load their videos, and then their videos could probably be covered by a NoScript exception for Vimeo. If the site didn't break, it would say, "You do not have scripts enabled, which means you are either running old technology, or are our kind of person. If you are the latter, we hope you will consider helping out." This is almost very nice and polite -- but please, skip the crap about "running old technology" when you follow-up on this example, and instead just condense the content which you were going to show me into a short summary with a nice little end point, "to see my app, please enable JavaScript." If your app is its own summary, like a blog article, then you absolutely should not require JS to display it. [1]: http://www.bartleby.com/122/34.html http://www.bartleby.com/122/34.html "As Kingfishers Catch Fire" [2]: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/david_logan_on_tribal_leadership.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/david_logan_on_tribal_leade... "Different Stages of Tribes"

Pewpewarrows 15y ago

Here is how I handle this for projects that I work on, and I haven't received a single complaint thus far: 1. Decide if the core of the site is undoable without JavaScript. Something like Google Docs or games relying heavily on Canvas/WebGL are prime examples. It is very rare for this to be the case, but if it is then disregard the rest of the steps. 2. Build the entire site without even considering JavaScript as an option. The advantage of this is I can finish all functionality without opening my browser window once. I build out the core with unit tests, and assert the base user workflow using integration tests that can simulate things like form submissions to route end-points. My test suite is now a constant confirmation that my site works with JavaScript disabled. 3. Open up the site in a browser, and begin the design & UX portion of development. Because the site is essentially feature-complete and tested already, I can have a lot of fun experimenting in this stage, tweaking things to my heart's content. 4. I slap this on the page after I'm satisfied with the enhanced UX that design and client-side scripting provides: <div class="jsnotice"> We notice that you currently have Javascript disabled. While this site is fully accessible without it, you're still missing out on some pretty neat features. We work tirelessly to ensure that our scripts are small, unobtrusive, and do not harm your user experience. Please add us to your whitelist, or <a href="//enable-javascript.com/">enable Javascript in your browser</a>! </div> Using Modernizr, that class only shows if JavaScript is disabled. The message itself is unobtrusive, and I always provide a way for the user to dismiss it permanently. If I want, I go into a little bit of detail on what "features" they're not experiencing fully.

goodside 15y ago
What percentage of your users actually have JavaScript disabled? How small would the user base have to be before you decided they weren't worth this much effort?
- XLcommerce 15y ago
  That's an important question to answer. Creating a site that works sans js then layering on js is great, but it does entail duplication of effort, a larger testing burden etc. It's important to work out if the ROI for going the extra mile makes good business sense. Especially given the (excellent) point the original post makes: if a user has turned off js then if your app is worth their time they'll find the js switch again without difficulties.

marcusf 15y ago

Honest question: How large is the noscript population? If I were to chose where to invest my time, catering to the noscript crowd would probably come pretty low on my list of priorities.

toni 15y ago
I think the premise of the OP is not so much "Your site should work perfectly without Javascript because I'm an arrogant prick" but more in the lines of "Earn my respect and don't treat me like an idiot, and I will gladly whitelist your site and will use it with Javascript enabled". If I understand it correctly, OP was redirected to a dumb-down instruction page of how to enable Javascript in his browser. What he actually wants is the reason "why" he must enable Javascript for the site. You can win over noscript population very easily by taking a little bit of time and explaining your app with some amazing screenshots.
- marcusf 15y ago
  Don't get me wrong: I don't disagree with the sentiment, I'm just saying I doubt I'd even put in the effort of redirecting them to a separate page of any kind if I'd decided that my landing pages should be very javascript heavy. My prejudiced view is that it's such a small part of the population it's not worth caring about, though I'd be glad to be proven wrong. If doing pages that require javascript to even run in the first place is a good idea, I think is a different discussion.
  - EvilTerran 15y ago
    <noscript>To enjoy all this awesomesauce, please enable javascript: <img src="/annotated_representative_screenshot_you_should_already_have_for_the_tutorial_page.png" /> </noscript> Wave some CSS at it to center it nicely; done.
  - toni 15y ago
    "My prejudiced view is that it's such a small part of the population it's not worth caring about, though I'd be glad to be proven wrong." It also depends greatly on the kind of web app you are making. If your audience is highly tech-savvy then caring about noscript population will increase your userbase.

ojr 15y ago

Complaining about enabling javascript on tumblr, a site that has many javascript functions built into their blog system by default is an oxymoron. Generation Y and our "evil" javascript enabled browsers will take over Generation X in years to come.

marginalboy 15y ago
I think you missed the point. The author clearly stated he was willing to whitelist a site he wants to use. There are good reasons for someone not to browse arbitrary sites with JS enabled by default if they choose, from security to memory management...

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

aGHz 15y ago

The OP missed the point: it's a passive aggressive way to get you off the site and hope you never come back. We're already focusing all our energy on convincing normal people why our app is awesome, convincing you why you should also enable JS to enjoy it is very low on the priority list. Not to mention that I already have to test my site in 4 browsers, you want me to now test it for a very small edge case too? How entitled is that?

EvilTerran 15y ago
Entitled? You're the one who stands to profit from the interaction. You do the legwork.
- Sumaso 15y ago
  And by the leg work you mean omit instructions on how to enable java-script? Seems a little silly to me, if you know java-script is disabled then you should just ignore the link.
  - EvilTerran 15y ago
    I mean "a least give the no-JS crowd a reason to let your scripts run". As the submission suggested.
    - msbarnett 15y ago
      "So that the site will work" is no less insulting to their intelligence, at the end of the day. They know exactly why it isn't working, and if they want to see it work they're welcome to fix it. But asking for a custom-crafted marketing pitch job aimed at converting a small and pathologically hostile market of noscripters is completely outside the realm of feasibility, here.
XLcommerce 15y ago
How was the original author acting entitled? He's merely saying that instead of insulting his intelligence just give him some screenshots and info about your app in the noscript. If your app is worth it he'll flick the js switch to the on position.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

tomkin 15y ago

I have a completely different viewpoint on this topic that probably won't be very popular – but, if we're talking about writing experiences for those with JS turned off, isn't that the same as having to write code for an IE6 experience? I imagine the percentage of people having JS turned off is roughly in the ballpark of how many IE6 users we have left to deal with. Why has this been turned into a purist argument when it really should be about practicality and quality of one's work? Though, I do get the gripe about not even seeing what the site is about before enabling JS. Even the weakest IE6 experiences seem to have some semblance of the subject matter.

EvilTerran 15y ago
Well... dealing with IE6 involves a lot of working around quirks in its treatment of plain ol' HTML and CSS, even if the site's completely static. Dealing with the no-JS crowd wouldn't entail that at all, so at least it should be an easier sliver of the market to cater to than the IE6 crowd.
masklinn 15y ago
> if we're talking about writing experiences for those with JS turned off, isn't that the same as having to write code for an IE6 experience? Not quite: the major issue with IE6 is that it fucks things up by providing partial implementations. A no-scripted browser "just" provides no scripting, static content and styling are perfectly handled just not additional behaviors. These are very, very different situations.
- tomkin 15y ago
  I agree with that, that they are very different. What I'm saying is, if you're going to start coding for minor audiences – where do you draw the line? And how would you explain to your client/employer that you will take extra care to make sure people with no JS get love but IE6 users get Chrome Frame/redirect?
  - EvilTerran 15y ago
    Where you draw the line isn't just about fractions of the market, though -- it's about market fraction ÷ effort to implement. If there's twice as many IE6 users as no-JS users, but it takes ten times as much work to get your site functioning on IE6 than on a modern browser with no JS, you're better off courting the no-JS segment.

thaumaturgy 15y ago

Ideally, sure, sites should try to fall back more gracefully than that if JS is disabled. But I'll bet that there are more IE 6 users than Noscript users.

masklinn 15y ago
> sites should try to fall back more gracefully than that if JS is disabled. They may not be able to though, take something like Etherpad there is very little value it can provide when javascript is disabled so being upfront about it makes sense. An other acceptable excuse is not having the manpower to handle both experiences correctly. Of course, the most common case is likely that they can't be arsed.
ticks 15y ago
It's one of those "live by the sword, die by the sword" issues as far as I'm concerned. At least with IE6, a lot of people are stuck with it due to locked-down corporate networks; whereas with JS, people who are opting-out should blame themselves - unless I'm missing an obvious web browser that doesn't support it? That said, I too offer minimal support for non-JS'ers.
- dhume 15y ago
  with JS, people who are opting-out should blame themselves No, I'm going to continue to blame that subset of JS coders who consume far too much of my CPU/memory resources. Thanks to them, I got to watch my browser slow to a crawl and become so unresponsive that it was difficult to even close the tab containing the offending site. The simplest solution is to have JS off by default. A whitelist system is nice for non-offending sites (I've never had this sort of trouble with JS on, say, HN).
  - Drbble 15y ago
    Try a multithreading browser, such as, all of them?
glanch 15y ago
I used to be a Noscript user, but I just got sick and tired of clicking 2-3x as much as usual, just to get every page to load correctly. Normal process: -Page loads, great -Click on something but it doesn't respond -Shit, probably JS -Click NoScript, see a list of sites =This is where is really gets good= -Stare at the list of sites noscript is blocking on the page, arbitrarily unblock one that 'seems' like it would be hosting the code that runs the thing I'm trying to fix, based only on domain name -Refresh the page, try clicking that thing again, if it doesn't work, repeat the process I wasted many hours of my life on that process, and what did I gain from it? Security? Not really, since I would randomly enable sites to run JS. So I uninstalled it. Worst case scenario, I get a virus and have to reformat, and lose an hour or two. I don't have any important data on my hard drive. So, Noscripters, are you guys just really concerned about security or is it a psychological thing - as in, it feels good to be able to be the boss of your browser and tell sites whether or not they can run JS?

kaichanvong 15y ago

I now `know` that this guy has the name Lisp.

leephillips 15y ago

Ten years ago, the web was HTML and CSS with javascript as a optional extra. It seems to me that the web has evolved into a communications and app-delivery medium where HTML, CSS, and javascript are all first-class citizens. I understand why some still block js, but I think this will soon make as much sense as blocking HTML.

debacle 15y ago

If you've got JavaScript disabled, no one is interested in catering to you. You are the pathological customer in the ad-driven content consumption world of the Internet. It's impossible to make money off of you. Sure, you enable JavaScript but you don't disable AdBlock and so now you're just consuming resources and contributing negatively to the site you're visiting's bottom line. I understand the myriad justifications for disabling JavaScript, but I don't really care. There aren't enough people with JavaScript disabled to warrant giving it any attention. It's the same with Flash. If you don't have Flash, I will show you how to get it, but I'm not going to spend the time telling you why you ought to get it, because I don't care to argue the point. There aren't enough people without Flash for it to be a concern.

icebraining 15y ago
Sure, you enable JavaScript but you don't disable AdBlock I'm the opposite: I run NoScript but not AdBlock.
- EvilTerran 15y ago
  Likewise. AdBlock feels slightly scummy to me - it's going out of your way to subvert the site's business model. NoScript doesn't automatically discriminate between ads and content, which feels... fairer. In fact, if I like your site, and it happens that NoScript is blocking your ads, I'll make a point of letting them through. http://www.projectwonderful.com/ http://www.projectwonderful.com/ is on my whitelist, for instance.
  - mistercow 15y ago
    >it's going out of your way to subvert the site's business model When people sneak snacks into a movie theater they are not thinking "I am going to subvert this theater's business model". They are thinking "The normal way of getting snacks at the theater is unacceptable to me". The same is true with AdBlock. Nobody thinks "Mwahahaha, I'm going to financially ruin some content creators." They think "if I see one more punch-the-monkey ad, I'm going to punch an actual monkey". I mute TV commercials, I change the station on the radio when the commercials start, and I use AdBlock by default. If I really like a site, I will turn AdBlock off and see if its ads are acceptable. Usually, though, I turn it right back on.

16s 15y ago

Many people don't understand the distinction between client-side and server-side. Javascript typically runs on your computer. I know that it seems to be out there on the Web, but it's not. It's running locally on your computer. It's using your CPU and your memory. It's important that normal people understand this. Edit: We disable Javascript because we don't want other people running code on our computers without our consent or knowledge while we browse the Web. Edit2: Here is some Javascript to peg a client's CPU (this can be malicious or accidental, but either way it's why I run Javascript blockers): <script type="text/javascript"> function burn_cpu(y) { var x = 0; while ( x != y ) { x = x+1; } } burn_cpu(99999999); </script>

gregory80 15y ago
I'm not sure I follow your argument. JS is bad b/c it's client side? Doesnt that paint all fat clients and every piece of software before the "web" in the same light?
- tobiasu 15y ago
  With one difference: You install traditional software by choice. On the web, you don't have a choice, everyone can just install and execute whatever they please.
- 16s 15y ago
  No it doesn't. JS runs automatically on my computer when I visit a website. By default our browsers execute it automatically. This is wrong. They do not ask for permission or check for signed code or offer any protection at all. JS infections are so rampant that a name has been given to it (drive by infections) as all you have to do is visit a website and its malicious JS runs on your computer and does the rest. Delivering malware via JS is now the cybercriminal’s favored means of attack.

Jach 15y ago

What a wordy way to get across the point. Here's a tl;dr: If your webpage doesn't display anything without javascript, or if it doesn't display anything except "please enable javascript" or "here's a link to tell you how to enable javascript", then please take the extra minute to add something like the following to your webpage: <noscript><span style="color:red">This site about X requires scripting because Y.</span></noscript> That's it, shortening/assuming context/lengthening as desired. Warning that your site will/will not be using your browser to mine bitcoins for the owner is optional. Recoding your site so it works with lynx is also optional and fine, if you really want to, but it's not what's being asked.

ebbv 15y ago

> someone who wants JS to be off or blocked. Someone who is thus actually pretty tech-savvy I disagree. Anyone who has JS disabled in 2012 is not tech savvy. They are a paranoid weirdo. They're the guy who refuses to buy a TV even though the Wire, Breaking Bad and Justified are on. Nobody should have to waste their time trying to convince you to be sane.

EvilTerran 15y ago
Setting aside your vacuous insult-flinging... Fobbing someone off to a patronising "how to enable JS" page is more of a waste of time than showing them a screenshot & paragraph description of what they're missing out on. It's about as much effort, and drives them away, while giving them a preview may actually earn you a customer - the very opposite of "wasting time".
jimminy 15y ago
So it's more sane to spend money just so that you can waste several dozen hours a year watching these shows, that will have ultimately no consequence in your life. If you want to do that it's absolutely fine, but there is no reason to deride someone for their views just because they don't match your own decisions. P.S. I love Breaking Bad and Justified, but I don't have a need for a TV any more, still have one, but rarely turn it on. If I want to watch them, I just go to Amazon/iTunes/Netflix/Hulu and stream them.
Lockyy 15y ago
"Refuses to buy a TV even though -snipped- is on." Forgetting about Netflix on your pc are you? In fact, watching shows on a specific channel as opposed to via an on demand service such as Netflix is actually a worse experience. Because I watch things when the TV channel decides, as opposed to when I want to watch things. I have a TV. I haven't switched the channel off of my ps3 once. Everything I could ever want to watch is on there.
- Tooluka 15y ago
  Netflix, really? The one with "Sorry, we are not available in our country" label on the homepage? Sure, all those good (and bad) series are also unavailable on TV in my country :) ... PS: just about every legal streaming site is unavailable outside USA. Or outside 10-15 premium countries in best case.

mortenjorck 15y ago

This just boils down to a question of understanding your audience and communicating with them appropriately. The simple takeaway is that disabling JavaScript tends to correlate with tech savvy, and so addressing these users as non-technical comes off as condescending and results in blog posts like these. If I'm building something JS-only, I try to speak the NoScript user's language when writing the error copy, even attempting to build a bit of rapport, like here: http://presteign.com http://presteign.com [EDIT] Something has apparently gone wrong in the last couple of days with the dynamic content loading on the site linked above, so I've put a maintenance page in its place. The <noscript> message was: This site needs JavaScript enabled to work. At least it's not Flash, right?

mratzloff 15y ago
While you were busy building a rapport with the handful of noscript visitors you forgot to test your site on the iPhone. Your site actually locks up Mobile Safari on iPhone 4S with the latest iOS. I have to manually kill the browser and restart it!
- mortenjorck 15y ago
  Wow, thanks for calling my attention to that – it's actually not just iOS; something has gone terribly wrong with the dynamic content loading (it's the same on every browser). It worked fine for five months and was working a few days ago; something must have changed on the server. I just updated the parent comment with a warning.
  - chris_wot 15y ago
    Sorted now? When I flip my iPad from portrait to landscape the text is no longer centered :-(
tobiasu 15y ago
There is no info what I'm missing. Anyway I tried to take a look at it: Enabled the site in NoScript and all I get is a very buggy menu. OK, lets give you cookies, real referrer, etc. Still not working?? Just for you, I've made a brand-new Firefox 11 profile with no extensions and all default settings. The site refreshes every second, spewing warnings in the JS console. It looks broken and I still don't know what it is about. Whether a site this simple really needs JS is another discussion...

madhadron 15y ago

A particularly egregious one: I went to download Google Chrome with links (the text mode browser). Google's download page for Chrome requires JavaScript. I know Google has been falling apart, but really?

teliskr 15y ago

Using the web without JS is pointless. Just turn it on.

NelsonMinar 15y ago

There's one very important user who doesn't run Javascript: Googlebot. If your site displays no content without scripting you are invisible to search engines. So this blog post's advice to display some static fallback is useful; not for the NoScript weirdos but for SEO. Hopefully the search engines will fix their spiders. In the meantime we have ugly workarounds like the #!/escaped_fragment nonsense.

lucian1900 15y ago
Although this is a fair point, even the googlebot has started running JS.
- NelsonMinar 15y ago
  Yeah, it does execute some JS, but not a lot. Here's a Dec 2011 analysis; a more current writeup would be welcome. http://www.distilled.net/blog/seo/google-stop-playing-the-jig-is-still-up-guest-post/ http://www.distilled.net/blog/seo/google-stop-playing-the-ji...
Drbble 15y ago
And Googlebot the indexes content, not apps. As long as you don't use Google's broken blog platform (ha, irony) your blog with your content works fine without JS, creating SEO juice for your JS app.

sohn 15y ago

Arrogant.

cnbeuiwx 15y ago

This got me thinking of Engadget and how they actually WARN the user if they have 3rd party cookies disabled (!) when reading comments: "Warning: A browser setting is preventing you from logging in. Fix this setting to log in" Sigh.

drewmclellan 15y ago

Thinking about users with JavaScript disabled is unhelpful. Sure, some of those exist, but they've largely opted into that. It's more helpful to think about designing a site to work robustly for the situations in which JavaScript doesn't successfully run. There could be reasons from aggressive firewalls blocking scripts, to slow or broken network connections, where the user might not get your JavaScript along with the page. Many browsers halt all JavaScript execution on a script error. All it takes is a badly coded third-party ad on your page, or a typo in your own code to stop all JavaScript on the page from running. Is it right that your page or app should completely stop functioning at that point? The web is a brittle platform. Things break all the time, but our technology stack of HTML, CSS and JavaScript can be exceptionally robust when used in the right way. Build your site with HTML. Make it look much better with CSS. Make it work much better with JavaScript. Be prepared that CSS or JavaScript may not load at any point, with the reassurance that plain old HTML has got your back. Sure, it takes a bit longer. Doing a good job always does.

attackio 15y ago
sure, let's all code for lynx. it's the future!
- fr3aky 15y ago
  sure, there's nothing in between.
- growdigital 15y ago
  Lynx. Then IE6. Then Firefox, Chrome etc.
- t1mmyb 15y ago
  Point spectacularly missed. Well done.
thefricky 15y ago
Progressive Enhancement is the name of the game. Still wondering why so many people ignore this

cientifico 15y ago

You are not part of my target users. Sorry and goodbye. As long as I normally focus on the 80% of the users, and more that 80% of my users use javascript, I have to say, that you are not part of my target. I don't have the money to make an app for the user with a normal browser (including mobile), and the user with IE, ups, sorry, the users without javascript. Buy a better computer

LinXitoW 15y ago
I get the sentiment(and i'm right there with ya), but the author isn't asking for your whole website to work without JS, just to display some very basic, static stuff without Javascript. Hell, even just ignoring that JS is missing might be a better solution. That way, the user at least gets to look at the HTML and CSS, which will probably still convey enough information about the website. I really don't understand why anyone'd even react to missing JS. Anyone willfully turning it off will be aware of that.

lucb1e 15y ago

To comment on the story: Yes, I have browsed without remembering that I had it disabled. Briefly, I guess a minute or five. Then I started missing things. Javascript is to enhance the web, the crux of all webapps. Going around to disable it, then enable it for half the websites you encounter, kinda seems overkill to me. I definitely see the advantages though. It's much faster, and you don't get disturbed by anything. Ideally I'd automatically get every article I go to from HN trough readability first. But doing that is slower than just letting my computer load the thousands of lines of JS, and not everything from HN is text. I can live with the nonsense on the page as long as adblock plus is turned on. Actually every news website should go trough readability, or at least get the "share it with your friends on Facebook, G+, Twitter, email, print, delicious, stumbleupon, digg, or by direct link" blocked by adblock plus. But disabling Javascript just for this? My website also has a message for people who don't have Javascript enabled. It does aim for an average user who doesn't know he has it enabled since one of the priorities is to get the broadest possible compatibility, but that's just one sentence linking you to where you can read more if you want to. One of the things I promise in the more info is that my Javascript won't ever be intrusive in any way. For example I use it to load Disqus comments, or to toggle visibility of fields when you click something. JS is not required to navigate or get all content though.

ww520 15y ago

I actually use YesScript rather than NoScript to selectively disable Javascript for certain sites rather than disable for all sites. It works pretty well.

nemo 15y ago

Disabling JavaScript doesn't strike me as "tech-savvy", it strikes me as "paranoid."

VMG 15y ago

Don't tell me how to write my sites.

tlrobinson 15y ago

I agree you should tell users why they should enable JavaScript, but sheesh, don't take it personally. "Someone who is thus actually pretty tech-savvy, and who actually took the time to wade through his browser’s configuration to find the switch to turn off javascript." Or someone who's nephew decided to install AdBlock and NoScript along with antivirus software when they were cleaning up their computer.

batista 15y ago

>On the other hand, what is the profile of the typical guy browsing with JS off or blocked ? I’m going to surprise you: someone who wants JS to be off or blocked. Someone who is thus actually pretty tech-savvy, and who actually took the time to wade through his browser’s configuration to find the switch to turn off javascript. Or someone who uses NoScript, or equivalent browser extension. I'd go with "someone kooky, wearing a tin-foil hat, a tiny minority, and very unlikely to be interested in what I'm selling anyway".

jakejake 15y ago

My feeling is that if you have JavaScript disabled, then you know what you're doing and you're used to sites not loading or functioning properly. If you can't enable it (ie screen reader) then unfortunately there's no point in saying "please enable JavaScript" in the noscript.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

mixmastamyk 15y ago

Agreed. I'll usually enable first-party js on a new site, provided it shows something compelling on load and the js import list isn't too sleazy. I don't use adblockers per se and welcome them if they are polite, respect privacy, and something I'm interested in.

derekprior 15y ago

Okay, I won't tell you to enable JavaScript. Can I tell you to bump up your blog's font size?

npsimons 15y ago

To all those who are saying "forget the people with JS disabled", I'd like to remind them that attention is scarce; information is not. Do the math. Sure, we may not account for very many people. We may not be "important" in your world. But I can tell you that when I encounter a website that doesn't work without JS, or balks at my filtering/anonymizing/caching proxy (with custom user-agent), I go elsewhere. I don't forward the URI of that site, or bookmark it. I forget about it. It doesn't exist to me. There are likely a dozen other similar sites willing to get my business or attention. I have no time or patience to waste on people who want me to jump through hoops just to see their sales pitch. To be sure, I turn on Javascript for some sites, but it's a pretty high bar that has to be met. Requiring Javascript to read a blog does not meet that bar. This article is right on the money.