4 ms·

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?
- EvilTerran 15y ago
  I don't find it that difficult to work out which items need unblocked, TBH. If I can't immediately tell, a brief dabble with the document inspector usually reveals it. And it's not just about security: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3836601 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3836601
- debacle 15y ago
  The only (semi-) good justification I've seen is someone who was very pro-OSS who said they would not use proprietary JavaScript. It was still kind of a shit justification, but I couldn't poke any holes in it.
  - Drbble 15y ago
    But proprietary HTML and CSS is OK?
    - debacle 15y ago
      Aha! I'll bring that up with him next time we have that discussion!

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?

EvilTerran 15y ago
I don't find it that difficult to work out which items need unblocked, TBH. If I can't immediately tell, a brief dabble with the document inspector usually reveals it. And it's not just about security: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3836601 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3836601
debacle 15y ago
The only (semi-) good justification I've seen is someone who was very pro-OSS who said they would not use proprietary JavaScript. It was still kind of a shit justification, but I couldn't poke any holes in it.
- Drbble 15y ago
  But proprietary HTML and CSS is OK?
  - debacle 15y ago
    Aha! I'll bring that up with him next time we have that discussion!