3 ms·

I shouldn't have to enable JavaScript to try R.

scrumper 14y ago
Umm... You could download an R environment, but that's hardly a smaller footprint than enabling JS. How else would you do it?
- just_saying 14y ago
  Well, HTTP GET and POST still work. No one seems to mind sending and receiving data that way when they're wrapped in AJAX calls.
ramblerman 14y ago
"I want to partake in all the goodness the modern internet has to offer... but only on my terms!" There was a time when NoJS plugins and the likes were valid (neccessary). These days you're crippling your browser experience more and more. Which is entirely your perogative of course, but then don't make sweeping complainst about things not working. What did you really expect? Them to run your R code server side? a) This wouldn't allow the same snappy response, you'd have constant page refreshes. b) why should they overload their servers, and come up with an inferior solution to serve some self entitled anti javascript snob.
- just_saying 14y ago
  I want to be able to say that I assuredly KNOW what my computer is doing at all times. There was a time when JavaScript wasn't minified/obfuscated, and the libraries weren't so huge as to require expert knowledge of exactly what was happening under the hood. I think your claim, that disabling JavaScript is merely invalid snobbery, is as silly as you think my idea of "crippling my experience (and by corollary everyone else's)" is. You make the assumption that I want the world to bend to my will, but I don't. All I'm pointing out is that the rich experience doesn't degrade gracefully, to a no-script experience. It doesn't even tell you that you need JS enabled, you should just know that already. I don't mind page refreshes, and I'd put forward that the type of person browsing without scripts enabled would already notice that every other page behaves that way, when scripts are turned off. If you're going to take the time to emulate the behavior of a statistics application in JavaScript, what's it take to also ensure that users get a similar experience when not enabling scripts? If a user is STUCK with an inferior browser/experience, it's not always their fault. The point I'd like make is that the answer is generally "tough. you're SOL. go get a better computer, and figure it out. try again, from somewhere else." You make the assumption that I'm being a snob, but as part of testing out any new website, I'll explore how it reacts with no styles, no images and no scripts. You tell me I want an inferior solution, and then call me the snob? How does that work? We'll probably never see eye-to-eye on these tidbits of taste-making, but maybe I'd accept your criticism a little more willingly if you called me pedantic, a paranoiac, or a browser-Luddite. Either way, I'm not taking your contrary opinion personally, but my side of the coin deserves some representation on this site. I know my opinions about flashy user experience go against the grain, and clash with the opinions of the JavaScript clique here, but I think this kind of criticism belongs in the conversation, even if it gets shouted down. Especially for bigger, well-established learning websites like oreilly.com.

Umm... You could download an R environment, but that's hardly a smaller footprint than enabling JS. How else would you do it?

just_saying 14y ago
Well, HTTP GET and POST still work. No one seems to mind sending and receiving data that way when they're wrapped in AJAX calls.

ramblerman 14y ago

"I want to partake in all the goodness the modern internet has to offer... but only on my terms!" There was a time when NoJS plugins and the likes were valid (neccessary). These days you're crippling your browser experience more and more. Which is entirely your perogative of course, but then don't make sweeping complainst about things not working. What did you really expect? Them to run your R code server side? a) This wouldn't allow the same snappy response, you'd have constant page refreshes. b) why should they overload their servers, and come up with an inferior solution to serve some self entitled anti javascript snob.

just_saying 14y ago
I want to be able to say that I assuredly KNOW what my computer is doing at all times. There was a time when JavaScript wasn't minified/obfuscated, and the libraries weren't so huge as to require expert knowledge of exactly what was happening under the hood. I think your claim, that disabling JavaScript is merely invalid snobbery, is as silly as you think my idea of "crippling my experience (and by corollary everyone else's)" is. You make the assumption that I want the world to bend to my will, but I don't. All I'm pointing out is that the rich experience doesn't degrade gracefully, to a no-script experience. It doesn't even tell you that you need JS enabled, you should just know that already. I don't mind page refreshes, and I'd put forward that the type of person browsing without scripts enabled would already notice that every other page behaves that way, when scripts are turned off. If you're going to take the time to emulate the behavior of a statistics application in JavaScript, what's it take to also ensure that users get a similar experience when not enabling scripts? If a user is STUCK with an inferior browser/experience, it's not always their fault. The point I'd like make is that the answer is generally "tough. you're SOL. go get a better computer, and figure it out. try again, from somewhere else." You make the assumption that I'm being a snob, but as part of testing out any new website, I'll explore how it reacts with no styles, no images and no scripts. You tell me I want an inferior solution, and then call me the snob? How does that work? We'll probably never see eye-to-eye on these tidbits of taste-making, but maybe I'd accept your criticism a little more willingly if you called me pedantic, a paranoiac, or a browser-Luddite. Either way, I'm not taking your contrary opinion personally, but my side of the coin deserves some representation on this site. I know my opinions about flashy user experience go against the grain, and clash with the opinions of the JavaScript clique here, but I think this kind of criticism belongs in the conversation, even if it gets shouted down. Especially for bigger, well-established learning websites like oreilly.com.