3 ms·

Disable JavaScript works to block most problems or reader mode.

by graphe 3y ago

gear54rus 3y ago
along with most of functionality, yeah, no
- chrismorgan 3y ago
  Most content websites work completely fine with JS disabled. There’s a certain sort of startup landing page that’s very commonly broken, but on general content pages it’s definitely uncommon. Though blank pages still aren’t as rare as they should be. Source: I’ve disabled JS by default for I think three years now, and hold that it generally improves the web. My technique is to disable JS via uMatrix, but don’t enable that extension in Private Browsing windows, and so just open briefly in Private Browsing if a page that I want to see is broken. I find this a pretty decent balance for ease of use.
  - gear54rus 3y ago
    It does not improve anything. The web is apps now, denying that is silly. I don't want to reload the page with each search or action in gmail. Neither do I want to download telegram or whatsapp if they can be used as a browser tab.
    - chrismorgan 3y ago
      I clearly spoke of content websites. I’m not suggesting disabling JS for web apps. You can easily enable or disable for specific sites with extensions like uMatrix and NoScript.
    - graphe 3y ago
      That's a cool opinion, but I disagree. It's not all going to JavaScript only. Even Amazon works without JavaScript. You asked for blocking cookies on content. It works.
- ben_w 3y ago
  I find that most useful websites work well without JS, and the exceptions can be whitelisted. I don't know for how long this will remain true, given the number of web developers whose talks are how to optimise fifty bajillion layers of abstraction so that they can load the JS needed for a form button click before anything else… instead of just using what's built directly into the pre-JS HTML standard. *old man shakes fist as The Cloud*
- everdrive 3y ago
  Unfortunately, modern website functionality is totally inseparable from all the things which make modern websites terrible. Losing functionality is the best solution here, as it trains you not to rely on unnecessarily complicate web apps.
  - gear54rus 3y ago
    Well I use the necessarily complicated ones haha
- autoexec 3y ago
  honestly I browse without JS enabled most of the time and most websites not only work just fine (to the extent that they show the content I requested), but they also load faster, look cleaner, and the overall experience is a huge improvement. Considering that in the rare cases where it doesn't work it's just a couple of clicks to selectively allow JS (which can be remembered so I only need to do this one time) or to re-enable JS globally it's really not a problem. It'll depend somewhat on what you use the internet for I guess, but it doesn't make the internet broken by any means. Because of the work I do I've got a ton of other things disabled too which can make it harder than it would be for most people and it still usually isn't an issue. I also keep a non-hardened browser around for cases where it really is a problem, but I rarely need it.

Disable JavaScript works to block most problems or reader mode.

by graphe 3y ago

Disable JavaScript works to block most problems or reader mode.

gear54rus 3y ago

along with most of functionality, yeah, no

chrismorgan 3y ago
Most content websites work completely fine with JS disabled. There’s a certain sort of startup landing page that’s very commonly broken, but on general content pages it’s definitely uncommon. Though blank pages still aren’t as rare as they should be. Source: I’ve disabled JS by default for I think three years now, and hold that it generally improves the web. My technique is to disable JS via uMatrix, but don’t enable that extension in Private Browsing windows, and so just open briefly in Private Browsing if a page that I want to see is broken. I find this a pretty decent balance for ease of use.
- gear54rus 3y ago
  It does not improve anything. The web is apps now, denying that is silly. I don't want to reload the page with each search or action in gmail. Neither do I want to download telegram or whatsapp if they can be used as a browser tab.
  - chrismorgan 3y ago
    I clearly spoke of content websites. I’m not suggesting disabling JS for web apps. You can easily enable or disable for specific sites with extensions like uMatrix and NoScript.
  - graphe 3y ago
    That's a cool opinion, but I disagree. It's not all going to JavaScript only. Even Amazon works without JavaScript. You asked for blocking cookies on content. It works.
ben_w 3y ago
I find that most useful websites work well without JS, and the exceptions can be whitelisted. I don't know for how long this will remain true, given the number of web developers whose talks are how to optimise fifty bajillion layers of abstraction so that they can load the JS needed for a form button click before anything else… instead of just using what's built directly into the pre-JS HTML standard. *old man shakes fist as The Cloud*
everdrive 3y ago
Unfortunately, modern website functionality is totally inseparable from all the things which make modern websites terrible. Losing functionality is the best solution here, as it trains you not to rely on unnecessarily complicate web apps.
- gear54rus 3y ago
  Well I use the necessarily complicated ones haha
autoexec 3y ago
honestly I browse without JS enabled most of the time and most websites not only work just fine (to the extent that they show the content I requested), but they also load faster, look cleaner, and the overall experience is a huge improvement. Considering that in the rare cases where it doesn't work it's just a couple of clicks to selectively allow JS (which can be remembered so I only need to do this one time) or to re-enable JS globally it's really not a problem. It'll depend somewhat on what you use the internet for I guess, but it doesn't make the internet broken by any means. Because of the work I do I've got a ton of other things disabled too which can make it harder than it would be for most people and it still usually isn't an issue. I also keep a non-hardened browser around for cases where it really is a problem, but I rarely need it.