4 ms·

I couldn't disagree more, until I moved in to my own house I was using a £15/month wireless internet dongle for my main daily browsing. Most websites would inun

I couldn't disagree more, until I moved in to my own house I was using a £15/month wireless internet dongle for my main daily browsing. Most websites would inundate my browser with constant AJAX requests, draining my internet at a ridiculous rate (Facebook was a pretty nasty one for this) and the ability to turn off my javascript at the click of a button probably saved me somewhere in the region of £30 per month, not a major gain, but when you're homeless it makes all the difference. (Although, this says more about the state of wireless internet fees, 15GB for £15, then £100 per GB after that, ridiculous!)

melvinmt 14y ago
You're the 2% who needs to install add-ons.
- shanelja 14y ago
  But why should I have to install an addon? This is something already built in to the browser, in all honesty, if you removed a feature I used frequently then told me to go elsewhere to re-download it, I would be going elsewhere to download some software and the software would be Google Chrome.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    You already know why it should be in an add-on: because your use case is a rare one, and rare features for particular audiences don't belong in the main browser UI. There are some fields where "But it's traditional," is a reasonable response to a proposed change. But software isn't really one of them.
    - singleuse 14y ago
      I'd like to know on where the notion that removing features used by only a fraction of the user base is what should be done comes from ? It is brandished right and left as if obvious, but it is never explained.
      - wpietri 14y ago
        Consider all the possible features that 1% of the userbase wants. Are you saying they all should be included?
- king_jester 14y ago
  So the solution for someone with expensive bandwidth limitations is to download additional software on top of the software they already downloaded just to configure a setting that was already inside of the first download?
  - samastur 14y ago
    Yes and if you want to browse more securely with Javascript turned off, you should also download a 3rd party add-on from unknown developer that will do this for you ;-)
- hexagonc 14y ago
  No he/she is the 2% that need to touch the advanced settings tab.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  Only one person in 9 million. That's quite a lot of people.
Guvante 14y ago
I was surprised he mentioned Javascript in the same breath as images. While turning it off should take a little bit of effort from the user (since the result is non-obvious) it is a mandatory part of a web browser, since you may not trust the websites you are going to.
- aneth4 14y ago
  How many users turn off JavaScript when visiting an untrusted site? I for one never have in over 15 years. And if you did turn it off, and the site doesn't work, what do you do? Read the source code and look for malicious JavaScript? Your down to the 0.0001%. Extension.
  - redblacktree 14y ago
    I run with javascript off full-time, except for a whitelist. I use Chrome's basic settings to do this (not a plug-in). It's actually really handy, since most sites don't really need javascript to serve their purpose. It has made reading news online much more enjoyable. I find that on a majority of sites, javascript is used only to serve ads or pop up annoying "join our useless mailing list" dialogs.
- robocat 14y ago
  Agreed. Apple AFAIK allow the user to disable JavaScript in the iOS Safari options http://osxdaily.com/2012/11/18/disable-javascript-safari-ios/ http://osxdaily.com/2012/11/18/disable-javascript-safari-ios... and Android browsers have the option too. Maybe the browser designers know something the article writer doesn't: enough people need the option and are smart enough to understand the consequences.

melvinmt 14y ago

You're the 2% who needs to install add-ons.

shanelja 14y ago
But why should I have to install an addon? This is something already built in to the browser, in all honesty, if you removed a feature I used frequently then told me to go elsewhere to re-download it, I would be going elsewhere to download some software and the software would be Google Chrome.
- wpietri 14y ago
  You already know why it should be in an add-on: because your use case is a rare one, and rare features for particular audiences don't belong in the main browser UI. There are some fields where "But it's traditional," is a reasonable response to a proposed change. But software isn't really one of them.
  - singleuse 14y ago
    I'd like to know on where the notion that removing features used by only a fraction of the user base is what should be done comes from ? It is brandished right and left as if obvious, but it is never explained.
    - wpietri 14y ago
      Consider all the possible features that 1% of the userbase wants. Are you saying they all should be included?
king_jester 14y ago
So the solution for someone with expensive bandwidth limitations is to download additional software on top of the software they already downloaded just to configure a setting that was already inside of the first download?
- samastur 14y ago
  Yes and if you want to browse more securely with Javascript turned off, you should also download a 3rd party add-on from unknown developer that will do this for you ;-)
hexagonc 14y ago
No he/she is the 2% that need to touch the advanced settings tab.
chris_wot 14y ago
Only one person in 9 million. That's quite a lot of people.

Guvante 14y ago

I was surprised he mentioned Javascript in the same breath as images. While turning it off should take a little bit of effort from the user (since the result is non-obvious) it is a mandatory part of a web browser, since you may not trust the websites you are going to.

aneth4 14y ago
How many users turn off JavaScript when visiting an untrusted site? I for one never have in over 15 years. And if you did turn it off, and the site doesn't work, what do you do? Read the source code and look for malicious JavaScript? Your down to the 0.0001%. Extension.
- redblacktree 14y ago
  I run with javascript off full-time, except for a whitelist. I use Chrome's basic settings to do this (not a plug-in). It's actually really handy, since most sites don't really need javascript to serve their purpose. It has made reading news online much more enjoyable. I find that on a majority of sites, javascript is used only to serve ads or pop up annoying "join our useless mailing list" dialogs.
robocat 14y ago
Agreed. Apple AFAIK allow the user to disable JavaScript in the iOS Safari options http://osxdaily.com/2012/11/18/disable-javascript-safari-ios/ http://osxdaily.com/2012/11/18/disable-javascript-safari-ios... and Android browsers have the option too. Maybe the browser designers know something the article writer doesn't: enough people need the option and are smart enough to understand the consequences.