4 ms·

it's 2012 and you should just enable javascript.

by packynix 15y ago

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.

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.