4 ms·

I am much of the same mind as the author, and for a very long time my NoScript was configured to disallow all JS by default. Sadly things have reached the poin

I am much of the same mind as the author, and for a very long time my NoScript was configured to disallow all JS by default. Sadly things have reached the point where this is just not realistic anymore. Too many websites just fail to work altogether, and I was spending way too much time whitelisting sites. And honestly, who has the time to check up on what each and every one of those is doing with their crappy JavaScript? Reluctantly I've been forced to enable "Temporarily allow top-level sites by default". This way most sites work somewhat, except when a bunch of their JavaScript is delivered from their CDN - then it all breaks again. At that point I'm usually happy to just bounce from the site, but it is annoying. In combination with a cookie-eater plugin, I have temporarily found a balance between keeping the web usable (FSV) and eating my own time micro-managing stuff like cookies, permissions and JS, but it's an uneasy truce.

tommorris 13y ago
This is why I'm keen on some kind of web of trust for this sort of stuff.
- k__ 13y ago
  Well, white-listing probably sorts out a big bunch of problematic sites. My problem aren't pages like facebook or google, which I use everyday (even if facebook is kinda overloaded) but more the pages I don't know :\
- eterm 13y ago
  OT: Do you have an email address? My work net filtering is blocking this blog for a bizarre but somewhat troubling reason.
  - tommorris 13y ago
    Yep. tom [at] tommorris [dot] org I've been filtered in the past because of LGBT related content on my site. A friend told me their school filtered it for the stated reason of "advocacy of immoral lifestyles". Which is hilarious.
    - route66 13y ago
      Isn't it very ironic to read, buried within comments about the perils of javascript, about some more serious threat to the web ... [omitted question mark]
weland 13y ago
> Sadly things have reached the point where this is just not realistic anymore. Too many websites just fail to work altogether, and I was spending way too much time whitelisting sites. I have a very simple solution to this: website breaks and has no legitimate reason for using scripts? Good bye website. I don't do web development, so worst case scenario is website breaks so I get my ass back to work sooner. I know one person is too little to make a difference, but I don't care. I'll stick to it for as long as I can, and continue to deprieve the owners of such badly designed websites of any revenue from my side. It's the same with any media, really. I sift through a book and find it's badly printed and barely readable? I don't buy it. For instance, it's stuff like this that gets on my nerves: > Thanks to frameworks like Angular and Backbone, you can build applications that contain no data in the HTML document at all. Hypertext without any actual hypertext. If there is no hypertext in your application, why the fuck are you using a hypertext protocol in the first place? Just like I wouldn't buy an electric car that requires me to purchase gasoline just because, you know, it's a car, so you need to buy gasoline with it, even if you don't use it (because the motor doesn't run on gasoline!), I simply don't use an application that runs on top of HTTP, but has no, um, HT. Edit: I do think there's a lot of strength in the crowd here. 90% of the websites that break with disabled JS break because of poor/lazy programmers or because of script abuse, that's trying to siphon as much data as possible. If users demanded a minimum level of quality from the WWW and refused anything below them, the designers and website owners would eventually have to cope. Unfortunately, the Internet literacy of most Internet users is basically inexistent, so there is little to build upon when asking for quality standards.
- marrs 13y ago
  I have a very simple solution to this: website breaks and has no legitimate reason for using scripts? Good bye website. This works quite well for me as well. I found this was the case back when I was using Linux before Firefox was popular, and it's still the case when I use my Windows phone now. I think there is still hope. The proliferation of mobile devices now means that cross-browser testing is nigh-on impossible, so this makes progressive enhancement more important now than ever. The improvements to CSS have made it possible to build a lot of cool functionality straight into the website.

tommorris 13y ago

This is why I'm keen on some kind of web of trust for this sort of stuff.

k__ 13y ago
Well, white-listing probably sorts out a big bunch of problematic sites. My problem aren't pages like facebook or google, which I use everyday (even if facebook is kinda overloaded) but more the pages I don't know :\
eterm 13y ago
OT: Do you have an email address? My work net filtering is blocking this blog for a bizarre but somewhat troubling reason.
- tommorris 13y ago
  Yep. tom [at] tommorris [dot] org I've been filtered in the past because of LGBT related content on my site. A friend told me their school filtered it for the stated reason of "advocacy of immoral lifestyles". Which is hilarious.
  - route66 13y ago
    Isn't it very ironic to read, buried within comments about the perils of javascript, about some more serious threat to the web ... [omitted question mark]

weland 13y ago

> Sadly things have reached the point where this is just not realistic anymore. Too many websites just fail to work altogether, and I was spending way too much time whitelisting sites. I have a very simple solution to this: website breaks and has no legitimate reason for using scripts? Good bye website. I don't do web development, so worst case scenario is website breaks so I get my ass back to work sooner. I know one person is too little to make a difference, but I don't care. I'll stick to it for as long as I can, and continue to deprieve the owners of such badly designed websites of any revenue from my side. It's the same with any media, really. I sift through a book and find it's badly printed and barely readable? I don't buy it. For instance, it's stuff like this that gets on my nerves: > Thanks to frameworks like Angular and Backbone, you can build applications that contain no data in the HTML document at all. Hypertext without any actual hypertext. If there is no hypertext in your application, why the fuck are you using a hypertext protocol in the first place? Just like I wouldn't buy an electric car that requires me to purchase gasoline just because, you know, it's a car, so you need to buy gasoline with it, even if you don't use it (because the motor doesn't run on gasoline!), I simply don't use an application that runs on top of HTTP, but has no, um, HT. Edit: I do think there's a lot of strength in the crowd here. 90% of the websites that break with disabled JS break because of poor/lazy programmers or because of script abuse, that's trying to siphon as much data as possible. If users demanded a minimum level of quality from the WWW and refused anything below them, the designers and website owners would eventually have to cope. Unfortunately, the Internet literacy of most Internet users is basically inexistent, so there is little to build upon when asking for quality standards.

marrs 13y ago
I have a very simple solution to this: website breaks and has no legitimate reason for using scripts? Good bye website. This works quite well for me as well. I found this was the case back when I was using Linux before Firefox was popular, and it's still the case when I use my Windows phone now. I think there is still hope. The proliferation of mobile devices now means that cross-browser testing is nigh-on impossible, so this makes progressive enhancement more important now than ever. The improvements to CSS have made it possible to build a lot of cool functionality straight into the website.