4 ms·

Sorry if this post is long for people. As someone running NoScript to enable/disable Javascript per domain. I had to grant about a dozen different domains the

by zo1 13y ago

Sorry if this post is long for people. As someone running NoScript to enable/disable Javascript per domain. I had to grant about a dozen different domains the ability to run javascript in order to view this page as the authors meant it. Here is a list of those domains: Scratch that, I just counted and it's not a dozen. It's 21 different domains! firstround.com adroll.com disquscdn.com googleapis.com manetate.net mxpnl.com addthis.com tynt.com disqus.com cloudfront.net wistia.com fonts.com facebook.com gstatic.com linkedin.com s3.amazonaws.com gaug.es umanoapp.com twitter.com typekit.com google-analytics.com This is the sort of thing I see on what I like to call ad-mill websites. Pretty much the seedy tabloids of the internet, and it's unfortunate that their message will probably not reach people that aren't willing to enable javascript willy-nilly for every domain this site decided it needs.

theandrewbailey 13y ago
If it's that laden with stuff, I'm not going to view the page as the authors meant it. I only have googleapis and linkedin allowed, and the article content is perfectly readable. When you use NoScript, this is what you implicitly signed up for. It's assumed that you know what you're doing.
sukuriant 13y ago
Did you just turn on NoScript? Usually, when someone turns on NoScript for the first time, they need to go about enabling and disabling a standard set of websites' use of JS. I wish there were automatic whitelists for this sort of thing, but I haven't seen any yet. While not all, many of those are actually useful for presenting the content. Probably 9 are required to view the page properly and allow for the website to manage their website. The others are common social media you would want, and only like 6 are purely for the ads.
J_Darnley 13y ago
You don't have to view a web page as the author intended. I also use NoScript and the text looks like it is all there and I even block all third-party requests using RequestPolicy (I don't see any of their images). The pages that use javascript just to turn off a "display: none" are the really offensive ones.
- Istof 13y ago
  When they use javascript to turn off "display: none", it can sometime be part of a feature that is useful, and not a way to annoy the user (or display ads or whatever)
Dramatize 13y ago
I wonder what the demographic is for people who avoid Javascript and/or use NoScript?

by zo1 13y ago

theandrewbailey 13y ago

If it's that laden with stuff, I'm not going to view the page as the authors meant it. I only have googleapis and linkedin allowed, and the article content is perfectly readable. When you use NoScript, this is what you implicitly signed up for. It's assumed that you know what you're doing.

sukuriant 13y ago

Did you just turn on NoScript? Usually, when someone turns on NoScript for the first time, they need to go about enabling and disabling a standard set of websites' use of JS. I wish there were automatic whitelists for this sort of thing, but I haven't seen any yet. While not all, many of those are actually useful for presenting the content. Probably 9 are required to view the page properly and allow for the website to manage their website. The others are common social media you would want, and only like 6 are purely for the ads.

J_Darnley 13y ago

You don't have to view a web page as the author intended. I also use NoScript and the text looks like it is all there and I even block all third-party requests using RequestPolicy (I don't see any of their images). The pages that use javascript just to turn off a "display: none" are the really offensive ones.

Istof 13y ago
When they use javascript to turn off "display: none", it can sometime be part of a feature that is useful, and not a way to annoy the user (or display ads or whatever)

Dramatize 13y ago

I wonder what the demographic is for people who avoid Javascript and/or use NoScript?