He created the bug that actually implemented the change. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851702 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85170

He created the bug that actually implemented the change. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851702 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851702 He's in charge of product design at Mozilla. From his blog: "Former Head of Firefox UX, now doing Product Design Strategy at Mozilla." This is a bad thing because it essentially covers up an important feature, and does not inform users that the feature plays a significant role in the behavior of the web pages they visit. This really needs some careful thought. I mean, Mozilla finds its roots in the very organization that created JavaScript. It owes to its users some clear communication on what JavaScript actually does. Think about it this way: When the world Wide Web was born, it was a means to deliver text documents, marked up for an interpreter, but the documents were static. What you asked for was exactly what you got, and it stayed that way. You could look under to hood, and understand the information that was being shown to you. But now? The pages that web sites deliver today are these absurdly sophisticated apparatuses, and what they do under the hood can deceive and manipulate your understanding of what actually happens when you simply try to read some text, or watch a video. Taking away the ability to put a stop to that removes power from the hands of the ordinary user. Now, when a webpage is delivered, the user is actively prevented from understanding the nature of the information they have requested, and the manner in which it is delivered. This is less open, and less honest. Tools like "View Source" are deliberately defeated, when a "normal", less technically-competent user is prevented from understanding that the page source they may be looking at, in an attempt to understand what they are looking at, bears very little relationship to the final rendering of the page they are expected to use. JavaScript is not (and should not) be required to deliver a web application. I mean seriously, a web application should be conceived without JavaScript as a requirement (gmail certainly delivers a static HTML version, and works beautifully, as such). It shouldn't be a requirement of the user, expose themselves and their devices to complex operations they may not understand, especially when they are interacting with a very large, very complicated internet, filled with other parties who may not act in their best interest. We are being pushed into ever greater dependency on applications like Firefox, and we depend on these non-profit "open" foundations to advocate the end user. When an organization like The Mozilla Foundation works against us, and operates in the best interests of large profit-driven companies (as specifically stated: in one of the related bugs, 537482: "GMail, Apple.com, Facebook, etc.")... ...well then, it's time to stop using Firefox.