5 ms·

I agree with Paul. A website that does not function without JS is a poor design choice. I have JS disabled by default and only whitelist specific domains. If y

I agree with Paul. A website that does not function without JS is a poor design choice. I have JS disabled by default and only whitelist specific domains. If your website content doesn't load up, there's a good chance I'm not sticking around unless it's imperative.

drstewart 13y ago
I don't think this is really a logical stance to take anymore than saying "an application that doesn't function without Java/C++/etc. is a poor design choice. If your application doesn't load up without needing an embedded runtime environment, I'm not bothering with it."
- alirazaq 13y ago
  That's a terrible comparison. Java applications requires the JRE which is a massive resource hog by default. An application written in C++ can be compiled to run optimally on the host OS.
nemasu 13y ago
Curious, why do you disable JS? Security? Preference?
- hnha 13y ago
  I am not OP but my reasons are security, ad/tracking breaking and general peace of mind. With the latter I mean for example popups, unnecessary animations, you might also like, CPU overload and other modern webdesign features.
- luos 13y ago
  I think it is because performance. Visit techcrunch (23) or huffingtonpost(30+) for example with an extension like ghostery which shows how many external js lib gets loaded. I don't block js but I block flash and it is for the same reason. My record is around 40+. I don't know why do they need that many. See reddit, loads 2 I think.
- josteink 13y ago
  Lots of pages, news-sites in particular, use JS to load more bloat, animated slide-decks and lots of things causing slower loads, including "beacons", and lots of fancy/noisy UI-elements distracting from what you actually came for: the nice, static HTML content that was the news. You will be shocked to see most pages on the internet load almost instantly the second you disable JS instead of spending several seconds loading all sorts of non-content. The performance gain of disabling JS is immense.
- alirazaq 13y ago
  I feel the web runs a lot smoother for me without JS. I don't get pop-ups, bulky advertisements, or other resource hogs that detract from content. I also don't like that Google or Facebook are tracking my movement across websites.
- lsh 13y ago
  speed improvements, privacy and the sense that the web should work without javascript, damnit. that said, js enabled+ghostery works well enough in Opera for me that I've started browsing with it on by default again.
gfodor 13y ago
Good engineers don't make judgements like this in a vacuum. Design choices are about tradeoffs and are not inherently good or bad. For a system like gmail where you have tens (hundreds?) of millions of daily active users, coming from countless different types of clients, a mode that eliminates JS dependency seems critical. Most sites are not gmail, they're not even close. Decoupling JS, particularly if it's done just to ensure the tiny fraction of people who disable it can use the site, can rightfully be very low on the priority list if it is a non-trivial engineering cost.
- camus2 13y ago
  rightfully be very low on the priority list if it is a non-trivial engineering cost. yeah like writing basic html is so hard and more expensive than maintaining piles of js code.
  - jonnydark 13y ago
    But it's not just HTML and CSS - you need to create a completely new user journey because you can't make asynchronous requests to the server. In some instances you may even need to manage server requests completely differently. UI elements may have to be changed as well as you can no longer rely on Javascript to animate them. You're essentially maintaining a second UI that is divorced from your main UI. There's significant cost in that. It's the same reason most sites don't support IE6 anymore.
- curiouscats 13y ago
  While there is sense in what you are saying you don't have to create the problem for yourself. Don't create situations where you rely on javascript in the first place. Granted there are some cases where it is an acceptable decision to get yourself into the problem (because the advantages you gain by doing so are worth the costs). But often companies just create the problem for themselves for no good reason - they could have avoided becoming dependent on javascript to do stuff they didn't need to do in a way that broke (degraded un-gracefully) if javascript wasn't available.
- alirazaq 13y ago
sehr 13y ago
> A website that does not function without JS is a poor design choice. I wonder if this will be our equivalent to the CSS aversion of yesteryear
Kiro 13y ago
Why not block CSS while you're at it?
- userbinator 13y ago
  CSS is not a Turing-complete language on which the bulk of security vulnerabilities relies. The majority of CSS used on webpages is truly beneficial to the user. (That said, I will turn off CSS on a page that abuses it; the majority of them don't, it's not a security risk, and it makes the page look better most of the time, so no problems with having it on by default.)
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2497146/is-css-turing-complete http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2497146/is-css-turing-com...
    - userbinator 13y ago
      > it's Turing-complete so long as you consider an appropriate accompanying HTML file and user interactions In other words, CSS won't just sit there and consume CPU cycles unless you actively interact with the page, unlike JS. The highest-voted comment on the first answer there says that a bit more explicitly.
      - CJefferson 13y ago
        CSS animations will certainly consume CPU cycles
  - aestra 13y ago
    stupid question - what do you consider an abuse of CSS? Do people abuse javascript? Absolutely! However, I think JS can make the page look much better. Ajax loads are quicker than page refreshes, autocomplete is very useful, reply boxes that are loaded inline on demand, Hiding of parts of the page if the user wants to, (long comment threads...) table headers that scroll with the table, etc, etc. The really crummy thing about JS is it has gotten so much negative attention because of the abuses and that's what people focus on. I really don't like the move to JS dialogs myself though. I don't think that they are beneficial to the user in many cases. Especially when a video or picture is displayed in a JS dialog.
userbinator 13y ago
Another long-time default-JS-off user here. The majority of exploits rely on JS to work, and by turning it off I've eliminated a huge attack area. I got hit with drive-by malware a long time ago, turned off JS not long after that, and have been malware-free ever since; and I visit some of the more shady parts of the Internet often. A lot of others keep telling me "but you're missing out on tons of cool stuff", to which I reply "most of what JS is used for, I do not find 'cool'."
- Spiritus 13y ago
  How about tons of useful stuff then?
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    I've yet to see one that's genuinely useful, and no, replying to a forum thread etc without a pageload doesn't count.
    - Spiritus 13y ago
      Since this post is about Gmail, I'll just stick to that an can still name a couple of useful things from the top of my head: - autocomplete of e-mail addresses - collapsing/expanding nested e-mail conversations - search suggestions - navigating your inbox while simultaneously composing a new e-mail
      - klibertp 13y ago
        Points 2 and 4 are doable with CSS. The rest is possible to approximate with some combination of forms, iframes and continuation-based backend. No "onkeyup" of course, but enter key can work nicely. Actually, I agree with both sides of a debate here: progressive enhancement is a really great idea and moreover it's completely insane to require JS and lots of potentially buggy and maybe even harmful JS libraries just to see what the page is about. On the other hand, non-JS and JS-based designs and implementations are just too different to be developed together - I know, I tried, multiple times - and what you really get is a blatant violation of DRY principle and twice as high cost. In short, until we have a set of non-JS components (HTML5 new input types are an example), which are common and make it possible to translate JS-based design to non-JS one without whole page redesign, we're going to see people over-relying on JS and not providing alternatives. Which sucks.
leovander 13y ago
Close, but it is not poor design choice. It is actually an issue with accessibility. http://webaim.org/standards/508/checklist http://webaim.org/standards/508/checklist
- vidarh 13y ago
  Nothing on that checklist precludes javascript-only applications. In fact, the checklist specifically points out that "noscript" content does not constitute a suitable alternative to inaccessible scripting - the solution is to ensure the scripted solution is accessible (e.g. no mouse-only functionality for example).
vidarh 13y ago
Frankly, the concern for users who turn off JS on purpose would be pretty much bottom of my list of considerations unless I'd be making something for a very specific niche demographic.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Disabling Javascript is a security precaution, it makes plenty of sense and will continue to make sense long into the future. You might as well say that the concern of users who run a firewall is at the bottom of your priority list.
  - Spiritus 13y ago
    Strawman much? That's certainly not a fair comparison.
  - toxicityj 13y ago
    That's great and all, but like they said, unless you're running a niche website with super tech-savvy users (this site, for example) you're not going to have to worry about the JS-disabled folks. When the % of users with JS disabled viewing your site is super low, it's not really a concern to cater to them.
- username223 13y ago
  That makes a cynical kind of sense. It's easier to extract money from more ignorant users.

drstewart 13y ago

I don't think this is really a logical stance to take anymore than saying "an application that doesn't function without Java/C++/etc. is a poor design choice. If your application doesn't load up without needing an embedded runtime environment, I'm not bothering with it."

alirazaq 13y ago
That's a terrible comparison. Java applications requires the JRE which is a massive resource hog by default. An application written in C++ can be compiled to run optimally on the host OS.

nemasu 13y ago

Curious, why do you disable JS? Security? Preference?

hnha 13y ago
I am not OP but my reasons are security, ad/tracking breaking and general peace of mind. With the latter I mean for example popups, unnecessary animations, you might also like, CPU overload and other modern webdesign features.
luos 13y ago
I think it is because performance. Visit techcrunch (23) or huffingtonpost(30+) for example with an extension like ghostery which shows how many external js lib gets loaded. I don't block js but I block flash and it is for the same reason. My record is around 40+. I don't know why do they need that many. See reddit, loads 2 I think.
josteink 13y ago
Lots of pages, news-sites in particular, use JS to load more bloat, animated slide-decks and lots of things causing slower loads, including "beacons", and lots of fancy/noisy UI-elements distracting from what you actually came for: the nice, static HTML content that was the news. You will be shocked to see most pages on the internet load almost instantly the second you disable JS instead of spending several seconds loading all sorts of non-content. The performance gain of disabling JS is immense.
alirazaq 13y ago
I feel the web runs a lot smoother for me without JS. I don't get pop-ups, bulky advertisements, or other resource hogs that detract from content. I also don't like that Google or Facebook are tracking my movement across websites.
lsh 13y ago
speed improvements, privacy and the sense that the web should work without javascript, damnit. that said, js enabled+ghostery works well enough in Opera for me that I've started browsing with it on by default again.

gfodor 13y ago

Good engineers don't make judgements like this in a vacuum. Design choices are about tradeoffs and are not inherently good or bad. For a system like gmail where you have tens (hundreds?) of millions of daily active users, coming from countless different types of clients, a mode that eliminates JS dependency seems critical. Most sites are not gmail, they're not even close. Decoupling JS, particularly if it's done just to ensure the tiny fraction of people who disable it can use the site, can rightfully be very low on the priority list if it is a non-trivial engineering cost.

camus2 13y ago
rightfully be very low on the priority list if it is a non-trivial engineering cost. yeah like writing basic html is so hard and more expensive than maintaining piles of js code.
- jonnydark 13y ago
  But it's not just HTML and CSS - you need to create a completely new user journey because you can't make asynchronous requests to the server. In some instances you may even need to manage server requests completely differently. UI elements may have to be changed as well as you can no longer rely on Javascript to animate them. You're essentially maintaining a second UI that is divorced from your main UI. There's significant cost in that. It's the same reason most sites don't support IE6 anymore.
curiouscats 13y ago
While there is sense in what you are saying you don't have to create the problem for yourself. Don't create situations where you rely on javascript in the first place. Granted there are some cases where it is an acceptable decision to get yourself into the problem (because the advantages you gain by doing so are worth the costs). But often companies just create the problem for themselves for no good reason - they could have avoided becoming dependent on javascript to do stuff they didn't need to do in a way that broke (degraded un-gracefully) if javascript wasn't available.
alirazaq 13y ago

sehr 13y ago

> A website that does not function without JS is a poor design choice. I wonder if this will be our equivalent to the CSS aversion of yesteryear

Kiro 13y ago

Why not block CSS while you're at it?

userbinator 13y ago
CSS is not a Turing-complete language on which the bulk of security vulnerabilities relies. The majority of CSS used on webpages is truly beneficial to the user. (That said, I will turn off CSS on a page that abuses it; the majority of them don't, it's not a security risk, and it makes the page look better most of the time, so no problems with having it on by default.)
- jacquesm 13y ago
  http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2497146/is-css-turing-complete http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2497146/is-css-turing-com...
  - userbinator 13y ago
    > it's Turing-complete so long as you consider an appropriate accompanying HTML file and user interactions In other words, CSS won't just sit there and consume CPU cycles unless you actively interact with the page, unlike JS. The highest-voted comment on the first answer there says that a bit more explicitly.
    - CJefferson 13y ago
      CSS animations will certainly consume CPU cycles
- aestra 13y ago
  stupid question - what do you consider an abuse of CSS? Do people abuse javascript? Absolutely! However, I think JS can make the page look much better. Ajax loads are quicker than page refreshes, autocomplete is very useful, reply boxes that are loaded inline on demand, Hiding of parts of the page if the user wants to, (long comment threads...) table headers that scroll with the table, etc, etc. The really crummy thing about JS is it has gotten so much negative attention because of the abuses and that's what people focus on. I really don't like the move to JS dialogs myself though. I don't think that they are beneficial to the user in many cases. Especially when a video or picture is displayed in a JS dialog.

userbinator 13y ago

Another long-time default-JS-off user here. The majority of exploits rely on JS to work, and by turning it off I've eliminated a huge attack area. I got hit with drive-by malware a long time ago, turned off JS not long after that, and have been malware-free ever since; and I visit some of the more shady parts of the Internet often. A lot of others keep telling me "but you're missing out on tons of cool stuff", to which I reply "most of what JS is used for, I do not find 'cool'."

Spiritus 13y ago
How about tons of useful stuff then?
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  I've yet to see one that's genuinely useful, and no, replying to a forum thread etc without a pageload doesn't count.
  - Spiritus 13y ago
    Since this post is about Gmail, I'll just stick to that an can still name a couple of useful things from the top of my head: - autocomplete of e-mail addresses - collapsing/expanding nested e-mail conversations - search suggestions - navigating your inbox while simultaneously composing a new e-mail
    - klibertp 13y ago
      Points 2 and 4 are doable with CSS. The rest is possible to approximate with some combination of forms, iframes and continuation-based backend. No "onkeyup" of course, but enter key can work nicely. Actually, I agree with both sides of a debate here: progressive enhancement is a really great idea and moreover it's completely insane to require JS and lots of potentially buggy and maybe even harmful JS libraries just to see what the page is about. On the other hand, non-JS and JS-based designs and implementations are just too different to be developed together - I know, I tried, multiple times - and what you really get is a blatant violation of DRY principle and twice as high cost. In short, until we have a set of non-JS components (HTML5 new input types are an example), which are common and make it possible to translate JS-based design to non-JS one without whole page redesign, we're going to see people over-relying on JS and not providing alternatives. Which sucks.

leovander 13y ago

Close, but it is not poor design choice. It is actually an issue with accessibility. http://webaim.org/standards/508/checklist http://webaim.org/standards/508/checklist

vidarh 13y ago
Nothing on that checklist precludes javascript-only applications. In fact, the checklist specifically points out that "noscript" content does not constitute a suitable alternative to inaccessible scripting - the solution is to ensure the scripted solution is accessible (e.g. no mouse-only functionality for example).

vidarh 13y ago

Frankly, the concern for users who turn off JS on purpose would be pretty much bottom of my list of considerations unless I'd be making something for a very specific niche demographic.

betterunix 13y ago
Disabling Javascript is a security precaution, it makes plenty of sense and will continue to make sense long into the future. You might as well say that the concern of users who run a firewall is at the bottom of your priority list.
- Spiritus 13y ago
  Strawman much? That's certainly not a fair comparison.
- toxicityj 13y ago
  That's great and all, but like they said, unless you're running a niche website with super tech-savvy users (this site, for example) you're not going to have to worry about the JS-disabled folks. When the % of users with JS disabled viewing your site is super low, it's not really a concern to cater to them.
username223 13y ago
That makes a cynical kind of sense. It's easier to extract money from more ignorant users.