7 ms·

I can't remember the last time I wrote an application that didn't rely on Javascript for even parts of its basic functionality. I simply don't understand why y

by kondro 13y ago

I can't remember the last time I wrote an application that didn't rely on Javascript for even parts of its basic functionality. I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS enabled and the average user definitely would never turn it off except in error, causing them to think the browser is broken. Every single common-use browser on the Internet supports Javascript, there is no reason to assume it is not there as a developer.

Dylan16807 13y ago
Key word application. An extremely small percentage of the websites I visit qualify as applications.
- kondro 13y ago
  But even Hacker News would be provide a better user experience if it made more use of Javascript to publish comments, etc. instead of all the jumping around with the current UI. Something only possible with JS.
  - aethr 13y ago
    This is my preferred use of js, providing additional functionality and usability improvements on top of things that already work perfectly well with js disabled. Users with js still get the "fuller" experience, but users who choose to disable js still have full access to the site.
    - kondro 13y ago
      But developers shouldn't have to implement extra functionality for the < 1% [citation needed] of people who browse without JS .
      - socillion 13y ago
        If it doesn't work without JS, is it going to work in a screen reader? Should developers have to implement extra functionality for the < 1% of people who are blind? Nobody is forcing developers to give a damn about accessibility, but it's a bit sad that so many have thrown graceful degradation out the window.
        btgeekboy 13y ago
        The way I understand it (and I don't claim to be an expert): yes, it will work. Modern screen readers let the browser handle the JS and related parts, and it reads the displayed text.
        justincormack 13y ago
        Screen readers can generally cope with much use if JavaScript now.
        dthunt 13y ago
        key word 'much'. That's like saying something 'mostly' works and therefor 'it's not a problem'.
        justincormack 13y ago
        No, I meant it can be made to work, you of course need to test it.
      - aethr 13y ago
        That depends entirely on your site and audience. Although some counter by saying that you shouldn't need to provide wheelchair ramps for the < 1% of people who are unable to use stairs. Sometimes it's not just about ROI.
        kondro 13y ago
        JS doesn't make the web less accessible. You can choose to make your web apps using JS just as accessible as plain-old HTML, sometimes more so.
      - Isofarro 13y ago
        But you have to implement this "extra functionality" already. Or, how are you dealing with situations where your JavaScript fails to reach your user's browser? How are you dealing with situations where the JavaScript arrives in the browser but doesn't execute? This "extra functionality" is the same "extra functionality" as having a safety cage designed and implemented in a car. Sure, it's just extra functionality that most people will never ever use. Hopefully. Touch wood.
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    I think that would be easy to fix using only HTML, if the refresh used an anchor tag to your comment.
    - kondro 13y ago
      But would always require a complete page reload. Not that most web apps wouldn't implement it that way to begin with anyway, but this would be the only choice with a HTML-only site.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        But go back to HN for a moment, there's not really a good way to insert new threaded comments in realtime, you pretty much need a refresh. So the no-js method is about perfect.
      - kps 13y ago
        >But would always require a complete page reload. So? A complete HN page is smaller than JQuery.
straight_talk 13y ago
>> I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS enabled Security, performance, JS ads ... >> Every single common-use browser on the Internet supports Javascript My company provides a web based app to Fortune 500 banks, around 15% of the browsers we see have JS disabled.
- dbaupp 13y ago
  > around 15% of the browsers we see have JS disabled How many are bots/scrapers?
- kondro 13y ago
  15% of browsers? I don't believe it. This has definitely not been my experience. You must be counting scrapers/bots in this total. Security? The browser sandboxes everything.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - andor 13y ago
    Some people have valuable data inside their browsers. Javascript code can access this data. Also, browsers aren't bug-free, and enabling Javascript significantly increases the attack surface.
    - tokenizerrr 13y ago
      Like what kind of data?
      - straight_talk 13y ago
        Seriously? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_banking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_banking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_scripting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_scripting
aethr 13y ago
It's not a question of browser support, it's a question of user choice. Do I want to allow any and all websites to run random scripts on my computer? For some people and some sites, the answer is an obvious yes. Especially when the script is an integral part of the app or site you're visiting, such as a game or a highly interactive tool. Sometimes though, the content should be enough. There are plenty of sites out there, like blogs, that shouldn't need js to provide their primary function. For example, I don't feel that I should need to enable client side scripting to view a 140 character tweet on the twitter site. For some people, tracking via js is the primary concern, and in their case it makes sense to disable js whenever possible, and use offline tools for everything that needs to be interactive. In any case, this move has a solid precedent, and as others have noted there are plenty of plugins that allow granular control over js execution.
ANTSANTS 13y ago
I spend a lot of time browsing the web each day. I spend very little time using "web apps," and the few that I do use can easily be whitelisted, since I rarely try new ones. Everything else is basically a blog, article, some other completely static source of information, or an entirely HTML forms-based interface. I don't block and selectively whitelist javascript, but I think I'd barely notice if I did. Maybe I'll give it a shot some time.
ars 13y ago
> I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS enabled It's faster. Much faster. Every time I disable noscript to use some website (90% of the time it's video that doesn't work) I'm always astonished how much GARBAGE most website have. Totally useless stuff. Popup boxes, annoying underlining with mouse overs, certificate verifiers, bookmarks, social network promoters, chat boxes, and helpers galore. I suppose that stuff pays the bills? Maybe. But pages are so much faster without it.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- kondro 13y ago
  But that stuff is all important for the website owner. Advertising for paying the bills, analytics tracking to work out who is using their site, chat/comments boxes for social interaction.
  - ars 13y ago
    I don't look at advertising - certainly not advertising that pops up if I mouse over a word. (Are website a game now, where you have to carefully move your mouse to avoid the underlined words?) I allow analytics. And I am not interested in social interaction, because the comments are so intensely stupid you become dumber just by your computer loading them.
  - andor 13y ago
    Disabling Javascript isn't equivalent to installing an ad blocker. Ads not showing are just a side effect if it. If sites can't integrate ads on the server side it's not my problem. Same with analytics: you can still use regular web server logs. Everything beyond that is too invasive for my tastes.
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
      Not quite. As lockers are common enough that they need to be considered. However, far less than 1% of users disable JavaScript (on the sites I work with). I'd be supporting IE6 again with those numbers, because the real cost is having to build and maintain the different versions of the site. And all for what? Someone who isn't going to make us anything near the time it will take to develop. I'm not saying what you want is wrong. Rather, what you are asking for is to have a game written in c to be rewritten in python because you don't want to use c applications.
darkarmani 13y ago
> I can't remember the last time I wrote an application...there is no reason to assume it is not there as a developer. I'm starting to feel old, since no one seems to remember HTML webpages instead of apps or those people that would say they can "program" html.
dman 13y ago
Speed. Try loading theverge.com or cnn.com with / without javascript.
- kondro 13y ago
  The content on both those sites load plenty fast with JS turned on… and I'm based in Australia with our shitty connection to the rest of the world.
  - sp332 13y ago
    I just counted, and The Verge takes 20 seconds to show any content on my computer with a cold cache. With a warm cache, over 10 seconds. If I disable JS, it's less than 5 seconds either way. And I'm sitting in the headquarters of an ISP (I broke http://speedof.me/ http://speedof.me/ but I'm getting over 150Mb/s).
    - kondro 13y ago
      With a cold cache The Verge takes under 7 seconds to display its homepage on my shitty 4Mbps home connection and under 4 seconds on a warm cache.
  - dman 13y ago
    You cant measure speed on a bad connection. You are penalising websites that are not bloated because they seem just as bad to you as the two sites listed above.
vacri 13y ago
Some mainstream sites will load js from 20 (or more) sources, just to show you an article. Crazy. Every mainstream browser supports Flash, too - does that mean Flash is the way of the future? I run with NoScript, and it makes the web a quieter, more peaceful place.
- thenonsequitur 13y ago
  Actually, at least one mainstream browser (Safari for iPhone) doesn't support Flash, and that's a part of why Flash has been declining (HTML5 capabilities being another important part).
rlpb 13y ago
There's now a distinction between a web application and a simple web page. If I just want to read content, I'm not interested in running your application. I'd rather keep Javascript off and retain my anonymity. If I actually want to use your application, then sure, I'll enable Javascript for your site.
dangayle 13y ago
There is a reason to assume that it is not there, particularly if you're developing a U.S. government website, and that's for accessibility reasons. Google Section 508 and you'll see what I mean. Go ahead and build your site to use javascript, but don't continue under the false pretense that everyone needs/can use javascript.

by kondro 13y ago

Dylan16807 13y ago

Key word application. An extremely small percentage of the websites I visit qualify as applications.

kondro 13y ago
But even Hacker News would be provide a better user experience if it made more use of Javascript to publish comments, etc. instead of all the jumping around with the current UI. Something only possible with JS.
- aethr 13y ago
  This is my preferred use of js, providing additional functionality and usability improvements on top of things that already work perfectly well with js disabled. Users with js still get the "fuller" experience, but users who choose to disable js still have full access to the site.
  - kondro 13y ago
    But developers shouldn't have to implement extra functionality for the < 1% [citation needed] of people who browse without JS .
    - socillion 13y ago
      If it doesn't work without JS, is it going to work in a screen reader? Should developers have to implement extra functionality for the < 1% of people who are blind? Nobody is forcing developers to give a damn about accessibility, but it's a bit sad that so many have thrown graceful degradation out the window.
      - btgeekboy 13y ago
        The way I understand it (and I don't claim to be an expert): yes, it will work. Modern screen readers let the browser handle the JS and related parts, and it reads the displayed text.
      - justincormack 13y ago
        Screen readers can generally cope with much use if JavaScript now.
        dthunt 13y ago
        key word 'much'. That's like saying something 'mostly' works and therefor 'it's not a problem'.
        justincormack 13y ago
        No, I meant it can be made to work, you of course need to test it.
    - aethr 13y ago
      That depends entirely on your site and audience. Although some counter by saying that you shouldn't need to provide wheelchair ramps for the < 1% of people who are unable to use stairs. Sometimes it's not just about ROI.
      - kondro 13y ago
        JS doesn't make the web less accessible. You can choose to make your web apps using JS just as accessible as plain-old HTML, sometimes more so.
    - Isofarro 13y ago
      But you have to implement this "extra functionality" already. Or, how are you dealing with situations where your JavaScript fails to reach your user's browser? How are you dealing with situations where the JavaScript arrives in the browser but doesn't execute? This "extra functionality" is the same "extra functionality" as having a safety cage designed and implemented in a car. Sure, it's just extra functionality that most people will never ever use. Hopefully. Touch wood.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  I think that would be easy to fix using only HTML, if the refresh used an anchor tag to your comment.
  - kondro 13y ago
    But would always require a complete page reload. Not that most web apps wouldn't implement it that way to begin with anyway, but this would be the only choice with a HTML-only site.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      But go back to HN for a moment, there's not really a good way to insert new threaded comments in realtime, you pretty much need a refresh. So the no-js method is about perfect.
    - kps 13y ago
      >But would always require a complete page reload. So? A complete HN page is smaller than JQuery.

straight_talk 13y ago

>> I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS enabled Security, performance, JS ads ... >> Every single common-use browser on the Internet supports Javascript My company provides a web based app to Fortune 500 banks, around 15% of the browsers we see have JS disabled.

dbaupp 13y ago
> around 15% of the browsers we see have JS disabled How many are bots/scrapers?
kondro 13y ago
15% of browsers? I don't believe it. This has definitely not been my experience. You must be counting scrapers/bots in this total. Security? The browser sandboxes everything.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- andor 13y ago
  Some people have valuable data inside their browsers. Javascript code can access this data. Also, browsers aren't bug-free, and enabling Javascript significantly increases the attack surface.
  - tokenizerrr 13y ago
    Like what kind of data?
    - straight_talk 13y ago
      Seriously? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_banking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_banking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_scripting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_scripting

aethr 13y ago

It's not a question of browser support, it's a question of user choice. Do I want to allow any and all websites to run random scripts on my computer? For some people and some sites, the answer is an obvious yes. Especially when the script is an integral part of the app or site you're visiting, such as a game or a highly interactive tool. Sometimes though, the content should be enough. There are plenty of sites out there, like blogs, that shouldn't need js to provide their primary function. For example, I don't feel that I should need to enable client side scripting to view a 140 character tweet on the twitter site. For some people, tracking via js is the primary concern, and in their case it makes sense to disable js whenever possible, and use offline tools for everything that needs to be interactive. In any case, this move has a solid precedent, and as others have noted there are plenty of plugins that allow granular control over js execution.

ANTSANTS 13y ago

I spend a lot of time browsing the web each day. I spend very little time using "web apps," and the few that I do use can easily be whitelisted, since I rarely try new ones. Everything else is basically a blog, article, some other completely static source of information, or an entirely HTML forms-based interface. I don't block and selectively whitelist javascript, but I think I'd barely notice if I did. Maybe I'll give it a shot some time.

ars 13y ago

> I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS enabled It's faster. Much faster. Every time I disable noscript to use some website (90% of the time it's video that doesn't work) I'm always astonished how much GARBAGE most website have. Totally useless stuff. Popup boxes, annoying underlining with mouse overs, certificate verifiers, bookmarks, social network promoters, chat boxes, and helpers galore. I suppose that stuff pays the bills? Maybe. But pages are so much faster without it.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
kondro 13y ago
But that stuff is all important for the website owner. Advertising for paying the bills, analytics tracking to work out who is using their site, chat/comments boxes for social interaction.
- ars 13y ago
  I don't look at advertising - certainly not advertising that pops up if I mouse over a word. (Are website a game now, where you have to carefully move your mouse to avoid the underlined words?) I allow analytics. And I am not interested in social interaction, because the comments are so intensely stupid you become dumber just by your computer loading them.
- andor 13y ago
  Disabling Javascript isn't equivalent to installing an ad blocker. Ads not showing are just a side effect if it. If sites can't integrate ads on the server side it's not my problem. Same with analytics: you can still use regular web server logs. Everything beyond that is too invasive for my tastes.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    Not quite. As lockers are common enough that they need to be considered. However, far less than 1% of users disable JavaScript (on the sites I work with). I'd be supporting IE6 again with those numbers, because the real cost is having to build and maintain the different versions of the site. And all for what? Someone who isn't going to make us anything near the time it will take to develop. I'm not saying what you want is wrong. Rather, what you are asking for is to have a game written in c to be rewritten in python because you don't want to use c applications.

darkarmani 13y ago

> I can't remember the last time I wrote an application...there is no reason to assume it is not there as a developer. I'm starting to feel old, since no one seems to remember HTML webpages instead of apps or those people that would say they can "program" html.

dman 13y ago

Speed. Try loading theverge.com or cnn.com with / without javascript.

kondro 13y ago
The content on both those sites load plenty fast with JS turned on… and I'm based in Australia with our shitty connection to the rest of the world.
- sp332 13y ago
  I just counted, and The Verge takes 20 seconds to show any content on my computer with a cold cache. With a warm cache, over 10 seconds. If I disable JS, it's less than 5 seconds either way. And I'm sitting in the headquarters of an ISP (I broke http://speedof.me/ http://speedof.me/ but I'm getting over 150Mb/s).
  - kondro 13y ago
    With a cold cache The Verge takes under 7 seconds to display its homepage on my shitty 4Mbps home connection and under 4 seconds on a warm cache.
- dman 13y ago
  You cant measure speed on a bad connection. You are penalising websites that are not bloated because they seem just as bad to you as the two sites listed above.

vacri 13y ago

Some mainstream sites will load js from 20 (or more) sources, just to show you an article. Crazy. Every mainstream browser supports Flash, too - does that mean Flash is the way of the future? I run with NoScript, and it makes the web a quieter, more peaceful place.

thenonsequitur 13y ago
Actually, at least one mainstream browser (Safari for iPhone) doesn't support Flash, and that's a part of why Flash has been declining (HTML5 capabilities being another important part).

rlpb 13y ago

There's now a distinction between a web application and a simple web page. If I just want to read content, I'm not interested in running your application. I'd rather keep Javascript off and retain my anonymity. If I actually want to use your application, then sure, I'll enable Javascript for your site.

dangayle 13y ago

There is a reason to assume that it is not there, particularly if you're developing a U.S. government website, and that's for accessibility reasons. Google Section 508 and you'll see what I mean. Go ahead and build your site to use javascript, but don't continue under the false pretense that everyone needs/can use javascript.