4 ms·

I think if you want to disable JavaScript, you probably know what about:config is and how to use Google... I think it does make sense to hide an option that pr

I think if you want to disable JavaScript, you probably know what about:config is and how to use Google... I think it does make sense to hide an option that pretty much breaks most of the Internet. As long as it's still in about:config I think that's reasonable. By the way, you can download any image on the page from the Media tab in Page Properties, if I remember correctly.

jacquesm 13y ago
It's actually a pretty bad development that most websites will no longer function without javascript. Graceful degradation was once one of the hallmarks of good tradecraft, and imo it should remain that way. The server should adapt to the client, not the other way around.
- mike-cardwell 13y ago
  That's not true. Most websites function fine without javascript.
  - okasaki 13y ago
    If you turn off javascript, most sites become at best read-only. A good chunk don't work at all or partially break in ways that make the site unusable even for viewing (e.g. flickr). I'm trying to think of sites of that degrade nicely. I can only really think of HN and gmail.
    - mike-cardwell 13y ago
      "If you turn off javascript, most sites become at best read-only" No. That is not the case. People keep saying this, but it is false.
      - jessaustin 13y ago
        Do you have some other counterexamples?
        mike-cardwell 13y ago
        I don't need to show any counter examples. I'm not the one that is saying that most websites don't work without javascript. Show me some evidence that greater than 50% of websites are broken when JavaScript is disabled, and I'll listen. No such evidence will be provided though, because it's a ludicrous claim. FWIW: I've been using NoScript for years, and it's clear to me that the vast vast majority of sites work fine with JS disabled. Most of them work better with JS disabled than with it enabled.
        jessaustin 13y ago
        OK, easy fella. I was just asking. I don't use NoScript, so I wouldn't say one way or the other.
- masklinn 13y ago
  > It's actually a pretty bad development that most websites will no longer function without javascript. Yes, because websites waited for this change to stop working without javascript...
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    It's a ratchet like process: - browsers don't support feature 'x' - some browsers support feature 'x' - all browsers support feature 'x' - websites start relying on feature 'x' - browsers change feature 'x' from being easy to switch off/on to defaulting to 'on' - browsers remove easy facility to remove feature 'x' That's a pity. Ideally websites would work with clients both new, old and configured to explicitly leave out eye candy and things like javascript. Of course there is a price to pay in terms of user experience and it is more work to keep your website alive across many different browser versions so I can see the reasoning behind this. But it violates the spirit of be strict in what you send but liberal in what you receive. If what you receive is the message that 'javascript isn't wanted' then you should respect that and make your stuff work without. Of course there are websites where javascript really is a must but if I want to use my bank website without javascript (to get rid of all the unnecessary pop-ups, overlays and other bs) and I find out that it simply doesn't work anymore then that's disappointing. So, mozilla obviously did the right thing here in hiding a feature that 'nobody' uses anymore but it is merely the last nail in the coffin of the non-programmable browser. And for some weird reason I find a browser that does not have the ability to execute downloaded code a good thing. So I personally regret this development.
    - Ygg2 13y ago
      Well as a developer it's easier to just assume JavaScript will be there. For example, imagine playing a game in a browser without JavaScript (yeah CSS can come close, but not close enough for my liking).
      - sp332 13y ago
        Games are one thing, basic navigation and rendering content are different. There's nothing about those operations which really depend on JS.

jacquesm 13y ago

It's actually a pretty bad development that most websites will no longer function without javascript. Graceful degradation was once one of the hallmarks of good tradecraft, and imo it should remain that way. The server should adapt to the client, not the other way around.

mike-cardwell 13y ago
That's not true. Most websites function fine without javascript.
- okasaki 13y ago
  If you turn off javascript, most sites become at best read-only. A good chunk don't work at all or partially break in ways that make the site unusable even for viewing (e.g. flickr). I'm trying to think of sites of that degrade nicely. I can only really think of HN and gmail.
  - mike-cardwell 13y ago
    "If you turn off javascript, most sites become at best read-only" No. That is not the case. People keep saying this, but it is false.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      Do you have some other counterexamples?
      - mike-cardwell 13y ago
        I don't need to show any counter examples. I'm not the one that is saying that most websites don't work without javascript. Show me some evidence that greater than 50% of websites are broken when JavaScript is disabled, and I'll listen. No such evidence will be provided though, because it's a ludicrous claim. FWIW: I've been using NoScript for years, and it's clear to me that the vast vast majority of sites work fine with JS disabled. Most of them work better with JS disabled than with it enabled.
        jessaustin 13y ago
        OK, easy fella. I was just asking. I don't use NoScript, so I wouldn't say one way or the other.
masklinn 13y ago
> It's actually a pretty bad development that most websites will no longer function without javascript. Yes, because websites waited for this change to stop working without javascript...
- jacquesm 13y ago
  It's a ratchet like process: - browsers don't support feature 'x' - some browsers support feature 'x' - all browsers support feature 'x' - websites start relying on feature 'x' - browsers change feature 'x' from being easy to switch off/on to defaulting to 'on' - browsers remove easy facility to remove feature 'x' That's a pity. Ideally websites would work with clients both new, old and configured to explicitly leave out eye candy and things like javascript. Of course there is a price to pay in terms of user experience and it is more work to keep your website alive across many different browser versions so I can see the reasoning behind this. But it violates the spirit of be strict in what you send but liberal in what you receive. If what you receive is the message that 'javascript isn't wanted' then you should respect that and make your stuff work without. Of course there are websites where javascript really is a must but if I want to use my bank website without javascript (to get rid of all the unnecessary pop-ups, overlays and other bs) and I find out that it simply doesn't work anymore then that's disappointing. So, mozilla obviously did the right thing here in hiding a feature that 'nobody' uses anymore but it is merely the last nail in the coffin of the non-programmable browser. And for some weird reason I find a browser that does not have the ability to execute downloaded code a good thing. So I personally regret this development.
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    Well as a developer it's easier to just assume JavaScript will be there. For example, imagine playing a game in a browser without JavaScript (yeah CSS can come close, but not close enough for my liking).
    - sp332 13y ago
      Games are one thing, basic navigation and rendering content are different. There's nothing about those operations which really depend on JS.