7 ms·

JavaScript Disabled: Should I Care?

42 points by lemonberry 12y ago

scrollaway 12y ago
"Why might JavaScript be unavailable even to users who have not disabled it?" The paragraph makes only the one point of mixed-content but that is not the only possibility. Another possibility is: javascript (or js dependency) is hosted on a CDN and the CDN is unavailable (down, blocked by company/state filters, ...). Another could simply be that part of the js is broken for some reason and did not execute further (could be because part of the js is generated per-user in a dumb way and our user is little bobby tables, could be because of caching issues, could be a critical bug not caught in QA, ...). Another reason is that loading assets could be extremely slow for the user and they will temporarily see the site in a broken state. I'm suffering from this myself currently - I'm out of the country on a massively throttled 3G. I'm closing a lot of sites before they finish loading their JS because I don't have all day. The type of speed I'm dealing with here exists in many parts of the world and it is unsafe (and extremely inconsiderate) to assume everyone will load all assets within seconds.
- radmuzom 12y ago
  So true. I can understand that some sites cannot possibly provide any useful functionality without JS (e.g. Trello), but am extremely annoyed when I find simple news sites loading a ton of assets from various CDNs - in many cases, I cannot even read the article if I am forced to use an older browser like IE8 or a slow internet connection.
  - scrollaway 12y ago
    Yes, exactly. Funny thing is, with a terrible connection like the one I currently have, gmail is the sort of app I don't expect to work at all.. except that it does because it has a very powerful html-only (a la 1998-webmail) interface. In the mean time, a bunch of blogs and wordpress-type sites will not load without their bazillion javascript files. Half of them from tracking sites, the other half from social sites (sigh). A few more years down the line, this is how the "web 2.0" will be remembered: 3 different JS frameworks on the same site, a bazillion share buttons and simply generally more javascript being served than cheeseburgers in a macdonalds.
- serve_yay 12y ago
  The latter is an argument against using any asset external to the page, CSS, images, anything. Unless you are looking at a network timeline in your mobile browser you don't really know what is taking so long to load.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    A lot of assets don't get substantially in the way of most of the page's functionality when they are slow to load.
    - serve_yay 12y ago
      The whole starting point of this discussion was limited 3G bandwidth. Anything going through that pipe is necessarily holding up other stuff from loading. Potentially important other stuff.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        I'll grant that this makes it an argument against those things. I don't see that it's an equally strong argument. In any case, you have to weigh the costs and benefits.
  - scrollaway 12y ago
    It's not an argument against using any of those assets. It's an argument against depending on them for your website to be usable. And that argument does apply to css and images. Obviously this does not apply to actual web apps but more to article-oriented HTML. And yes, I do look at network timelines (I tether, sue me). The amount of sites that will hang until jquery is done loading because displaying their measly 50 lines of text requires a fancy animation they were too lazy to implement in css is pathetic.
- josephlord 12y ago
  I use Noscript and will usually enable JS at least temporarily for the main domain and a CDNA but often balk at a list of 10 TLDs that the page needs to load (particularly tracking and advertising sites). Sometimes I try to find the necessary ones and others I just move on.
serve_yay 12y ago
As always, depends what you're building. I work on a web app used by a small group of customers to do very valuable things, where requiring JS is a no-brainer. You probably shouldn't require it to show a simple news article or blog post, though.
- jdjb 12y ago
  Or if I put on my tin foil hat, I think the position of most content websites is that if you are consuming their content, but blocking javascript (and therefore their ads and trackers) then they actually want you to have a bad experience and not come back (they can't make any money off you).
  - candu 12y ago
    ...which is why I prefer extensions like AdBlock, Privacy Badger, etc. to disabling JavaScript: they cut out ad/tracker cruft without destroying my experience.
matteodepalo 12y ago
To be fair here's the opposite view: http://tomdale.net/2013/09/progressive-enhancement-is-dead/ http://tomdale.net/2013/09/progressive-enhancement-is-dead/
- ianlevesque 12y ago
  Really great read. One interesting point: "What I’ve found, counter-intuitively, is that apps that embrace JavaScript actually end up having less JavaScript." The example given is the Boston Globe with over a half megabyte of JavaScript for essentially textual content. I think this is a great example of why people are still using NoScript in 2014.
unclebunkers 12y ago
Considering the number of javascript client/single web page apps out there, not having javascript is simply not an option. Because of the nature of the sites I've been building, there is no point to using if you don't enable javascript.
- adricnet 12y ago
  Perhaps someone could run a directory of these sites there is no point in using? Then we can all be happier.
  - unclebunkers 12y ago
    Yes, all those <form post/> base games were soooo much fun.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "Because of the nature of the sites I've been building, there is no point to using if you don't enable javascript." That may well be the case, but I think people are too quick to conclude that.
lcampbell 12y ago
The article calls out <noscript> messages as a bad practice, but as someone who routinely runs without javascript enabled, I much prefer webpages to explicitly point out that the issue is on my end, not theirs (rather than, e.g., a white screen of death).
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Needing noscript where you shouldn't is a bad practice. Lacking noscript where it's needed is breakage.
- drvortex 12y ago
  Honest Question: What circumstances force you to browse without Javascript? It feels a little like running a car constantly in first gear. It is going to be a guaranteed sub-optimal experience.
  - cgar 12y ago
    Security, privacy, and bandwidth.
eric_bullington 12y ago
I think it's critical here to distinguish between full client-side application (e.g., gmail) and an informational web site (e.g., a news site, a blog, or code documentation). It's a bad idea to require Javascript for the latter, but it's equally silly to try to build a fully-responsive client application using no Javascript, or progressive enhancement. In several of my recent sites, there's been a main company site requiring no Javascript, but then a portal to one or more applications or services that requires Javascript. In these cases, Javascript is taking the place of what before might have been Java applets, Flash apps, or Silverlight applications. But it's arguably more secure, fairly standardized, and "installed" by default. And in the cases of full browser applications, I think it's silly to argue against requiring Javascript. You simply can't build a fully responsive client-side application using just HTTP calls and static HTML, no matter how performant the server side. And I will absolutely continue to use <noscript> tags for browser apps that run on Javascript, since it's rather rude to just show a white screen with no indication of what the problem is to users.
- scrollaway 12y ago
  I'd like people to start more readily differenciating between web apps and documents (dynamic or not). I think we're at the point where it's obvious that there is a difference between the two and it's just as obvious requiring JS for web apps is completely acceptable.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    I think you are getting at an important distinction, but you're confused about what it actually is. The important question is, "What is the goal of this site? What is the best way to still meet that goal without JS?" For documents, the answer is probably "provide the information", and that can trivially be accomplished without JS. For some excruciatingly dynamic web apps, the answer might be "use someone else's product" or even "it can't be done". There is substantial middle ground, though.
    - scrollaway 12y ago
dubcanada 12y ago
I think sacrificing functionality for 99% of users to accommodate 1% is sheer bloody mindedness. We can design our sites using a technique called Progressive Enhancement. Sounds to me like he just said you shouldn't do that, and then tells you to do it. You don't create a website, and then provide an enhanced version for those with javascript enabled. Not unless you are building a website in 1995. You provide a normal version and a degraded version for those with missing parts. The problem is Javascript is part of the browser, when you disable part of the browser. Stuff won't work... It's not up to the web developer to accommodate that. If someone has a virus on their computer, you don't build your website expecting ads to be placed on it. If someone has an extension that changes every word on the page that starts with v to cheese. You shouldn't rewrite your website to not use v words.
hawkice 12y ago
The author provides a fully general argument for supporting IE 5, Lynx, semantic HTML, lack of minification, testing with the website readers for blind people, and internationalizing immediately. I highly recommend discussing the actual cause of whether or not stuff like this gets done: is it worth the time? Saying you can use a technique to help out a very small portion of users, therefore you should, lacks the nuance that (we observe) people need to make these choices.
joelanman 12y ago
GOV.UK ran some stats on who wasn't running JavaScript and why: https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missi...
TheAceOfHearts 12y ago
For document-based websites, I go JS-free. My blog works without JS (except for comments, because they're from disqus and I'm lazy). And for public facing document websites it's usually possible to cache everything so it'll be REALLY fast. But if I'm making an actual application, it's a lot simpler to disregard users without JS. For example, I use angularjs, and if you take full advantage of it, you always just send the user the same index.html page and the server has a bunch of JSON API endpoints. Then you let the client-side router take over. If you really want to support JS-free users on your application, you're probably better of making a separate limited version of your application instead of having multiple fallbacks in the same page.
joshstrange 12y ago
I work on a web app that is half and half when it comes to depending on JS. The site started as MVC PHP app that was all server-side but over the years JS was added to do client-side validation and other UI/UX enhancements. In part because the customers asked for them and because something would have been extremely tedious and frustrating without JS+AJAX. As time wore on entire components were built with JS making them unusable with out it. I have some co-workers who want to move all logic back to the server side or at least provide fallbacks for non-JS users but I strongly oppose this. We have parts of our app that use google maps that would be completely unusable without JS and those parts are arguably the most important and central parts of our app. They want to approach it as "Lets make as many parts usable without JS as we can" while my opinion is "If parts of the app absolutely require JS and are heavily used parts then why waste our time worry about people with JS disabled". Especially since a lot of the server-side only parts of the app could be greatly enhanced with JS. I should also mention that this web app is NOT public facing and is only used by our call center (which we control the browser, newest chrome) and various groups of people using our software which so far all have JS enabled. I agree that a news website does not need to have JS-required pages for 99.999%+ of their content. If they are taking the time to enhance their site with JS then I believe they probably also have the time (and financial incentive) to make their sites work without JS. Web apps on the hand are a different story. Once you have a significant number of users it might make sense to invest the time in making a fallback or slimed down version (I'm thinking Google/Facebook/etc) but for most companies I don't think supporting a JS-disabled web is a good use of time.
- mbell 12y ago
  > I agree that a news website does not need to have JS-required pages for 99.999%+ of their content. I've seen this idea a number of times in this thread, it's far from true. The majority of advertising systems require JS. Without advertising, the news site has no income. As a result the internal discussion is going to be more like 'why waste any time at all to support the ~1% of users who will never generate any revenue'.
  - joshstrange 12y ago
    You can still show ads with JS disabled at least some of the ads systems I have used have <noscript> tags following the JS include to show something still if JS is disabled. It's far less targeted for sure which in turn leads to less revenue from them. And I think it's fair for a free resource (This does not hold for news sites behind a paywall) to require JS so that they can make money off ads to in turn support the free viewing.
erkose 12y ago
An alternate view is: If your site requires javascript (or cookies or registration) we don't use it. There are plenty of sites that work better with javascript, but are still fully or mostly functional without it. This is where you will find those of us who choose not to allow sites to run javacript in our browser. As an example, nytimes requires registration. The registration page is the extent of my interaction with their site. I turned to theguardian many years ago, and, while I value nytimes, I wouldn't be able to quantify any meaningful difference between the two.
drabiega 12y ago
I've always considered disabling javascript or using something like adblock to be bad form. Ads are annoying, but they're paying for the content I'm consuming.
- MildlySerious 12y ago
  This is a whole new discussion in itself, but I was shocked when I disabled AdBlock for a website I frequent and like, just to see that flashbanners that make the whole websites background (ie. whitespace I use to navigate) clickable still exist. I wouldn't use half of those websites if it wasn't for AdBlock, so it's no loss for them. I'm trying not to punish the other half for that.
ised 12y ago
"Why do some users choose to disable Javascript?" Well, you could also ask why do some developers choose to write applications that retrieve HTML but do not process Javascript? If I recall correctly, for a while the links and elinks browsers experimented with processing Javascript but eventually if I'm not mistaken the developer decided to drop it in future versions. Why? I do not remember but I know that he did offer an explanation. I have always thought Javascript generally benefits web developers more than users. And this is not a quality inherent of the language, but it has to do with how this particular language is used in practice. When I download someone else's C code, compile and run it, I generally have a rough idea of what that code is going to do. When a "modern web browser" (=not a text-only one) runs any and all Javascript from any web resource, I generally have no clue what that code is going to do. These browsers will automatically load resources from many sources other the one hosting the page to which the user navigates. They will make numerous connections to other addresses (to retrieve "third-party resources") instead of just one to the address the user specifies. Often the Javascript code is coming from a third party. Imagine a pop-up asking for permission each time the browser wants to run Javascript code from somewhere. In the early days of browsers, if I recall correctly, you could require the browser to do this (and the same goes for accepting cookies). I never considered this practical back then and it is certainly not a solution that would be practical today. And today, when the company that writes the "modern web browser" assures me that it will protect me from malicious Javascript, I have no clue what the "modern web browser" itself is going to do to try to accomplish that. Because I cannot easily compile the "modern web browser" myself. It is not meant to be compiled by users. There is a large amount of implied trust. It's somewhat like downloading random Windows applications one finds on the www, installing them and running them. Do you trust that Microsoft or some anti-virus company will protect you? That is a tall order. Whereas if you merely refrain from downloading and installing such programs, if you refrain from blindly opening attachments in email, then you avoid that risk. By not running Javascript, the user avoids the risk of malicious Javascript, and may even avoid the need for a "modern web browser"... and thereby the high complexity (=higher risk of insecurity) that comes with it. Keeping the user safe from malicious Javascript is a tall order for any browser to fill. All that said, if I the user can get the information I want from the www without having to run Javascript and hence a "modern web browser", then I will always choose the non-Javascript option simply because _it is often faster and more efficient_, regardless of any possible security benefits. Thankfully, I rarely need the "modern web browser", even for webmail. It is true that Javascript is frequently an impediment that stands between the user and fast and efficient computing but in my experience it is rarely a show stopper for the user who disables it. To answer the OP's question: No, as a developer, I do not think you should care. Javascript is a fun language and people will pay you to write in it. For the Javascript developer, life is good. Carry on.
EGreg 12y ago
One consideration remains: what shows up on the screen before JS goes to work. Otherwise you should probably fade in the contents as they're loading.

42 points by lemonberry 12y ago

"Why might JavaScript be unavailable even to users who have not disabled it?" The paragraph makes only the one point of mixed-content but that is not the only possibility. Another possibility is: javascript (or js dependency) is hosted on a CDN and the CDN is unavailable (down, blocked by company/state filters, ...). Another could simply be that part of the js is broken for some reason and did not execute further (could be because part of the js is generated per-user in a dumb way and our user is little bobby tables, could be because of caching issues, could be a critical bug not caught in QA, ...). Another reason is that loading assets could be extremely slow for the user and they will temporarily see the site in a broken state. I'm suffering from this myself currently - I'm out of the country on a massively throttled 3G. I'm closing a lot of sites before they finish loading their JS because I don't have all day. The type of speed I'm dealing with here exists in many parts of the world and it is unsafe (and extremely inconsiderate) to assume everyone will load all assets within seconds.

radmuzom 12y ago
So true. I can understand that some sites cannot possibly provide any useful functionality without JS (e.g. Trello), but am extremely annoyed when I find simple news sites loading a ton of assets from various CDNs - in many cases, I cannot even read the article if I am forced to use an older browser like IE8 or a slow internet connection.
- scrollaway 12y ago
  Yes, exactly. Funny thing is, with a terrible connection like the one I currently have, gmail is the sort of app I don't expect to work at all.. except that it does because it has a very powerful html-only (a la 1998-webmail) interface. In the mean time, a bunch of blogs and wordpress-type sites will not load without their bazillion javascript files. Half of them from tracking sites, the other half from social sites (sigh). A few more years down the line, this is how the "web 2.0" will be remembered: 3 different JS frameworks on the same site, a bazillion share buttons and simply generally more javascript being served than cheeseburgers in a macdonalds.
serve_yay 12y ago
The latter is an argument against using any asset external to the page, CSS, images, anything. Unless you are looking at a network timeline in your mobile browser you don't really know what is taking so long to load.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  A lot of assets don't get substantially in the way of most of the page's functionality when they are slow to load.
  - serve_yay 12y ago
    The whole starting point of this discussion was limited 3G bandwidth. Anything going through that pipe is necessarily holding up other stuff from loading. Potentially important other stuff.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      I'll grant that this makes it an argument against those things. I don't see that it's an equally strong argument. In any case, you have to weigh the costs and benefits.
- scrollaway 12y ago
  It's not an argument against using any of those assets. It's an argument against depending on them for your website to be usable. And that argument does apply to css and images. Obviously this does not apply to actual web apps but more to article-oriented HTML. And yes, I do look at network timelines (I tether, sue me). The amount of sites that will hang until jquery is done loading because displaying their measly 50 lines of text requires a fancy animation they were too lazy to implement in css is pathetic.
josephlord 12y ago
I use Noscript and will usually enable JS at least temporarily for the main domain and a CDNA but often balk at a list of 10 TLDs that the page needs to load (particularly tracking and advertising sites). Sometimes I try to find the necessary ones and others I just move on.

serve_yay 12y ago

As always, depends what you're building. I work on a web app used by a small group of customers to do very valuable things, where requiring JS is a no-brainer. You probably shouldn't require it to show a simple news article or blog post, though.

jdjb 12y ago
Or if I put on my tin foil hat, I think the position of most content websites is that if you are consuming their content, but blocking javascript (and therefore their ads and trackers) then they actually want you to have a bad experience and not come back (they can't make any money off you).
- candu 12y ago
  ...which is why I prefer extensions like AdBlock, Privacy Badger, etc. to disabling JavaScript: they cut out ad/tracker cruft without destroying my experience.

matteodepalo 12y ago

To be fair here's the opposite view: http://tomdale.net/2013/09/progressive-enhancement-is-dead/ http://tomdale.net/2013/09/progressive-enhancement-is-dead/

ianlevesque 12y ago
Really great read. One interesting point: "What I’ve found, counter-intuitively, is that apps that embrace JavaScript actually end up having less JavaScript." The example given is the Boston Globe with over a half megabyte of JavaScript for essentially textual content. I think this is a great example of why people are still using NoScript in 2014.

unclebunkers 12y ago

Considering the number of javascript client/single web page apps out there, not having javascript is simply not an option. Because of the nature of the sites I've been building, there is no point to using if you don't enable javascript.

adricnet 12y ago
Perhaps someone could run a directory of these sites there is no point in using? Then we can all be happier.
- unclebunkers 12y ago
  Yes, all those <form post/> base games were soooo much fun.
dllthomas 12y ago
"Because of the nature of the sites I've been building, there is no point to using if you don't enable javascript." That may well be the case, but I think people are too quick to conclude that.

lcampbell 12y ago

The article calls out <noscript> messages as a bad practice, but as someone who routinely runs without javascript enabled, I much prefer webpages to explicitly point out that the issue is on my end, not theirs (rather than, e.g., a white screen of death).

dllthomas 12y ago
Needing noscript where you shouldn't is a bad practice. Lacking noscript where it's needed is breakage.
drvortex 12y ago
Honest Question: What circumstances force you to browse without Javascript? It feels a little like running a car constantly in first gear. It is going to be a guaranteed sub-optimal experience.
- cgar 12y ago
  Security, privacy, and bandwidth.

eric_bullington 12y ago

I think it's critical here to distinguish between full client-side application (e.g., gmail) and an informational web site (e.g., a news site, a blog, or code documentation). It's a bad idea to require Javascript for the latter, but it's equally silly to try to build a fully-responsive client application using no Javascript, or progressive enhancement. In several of my recent sites, there's been a main company site requiring no Javascript, but then a portal to one or more applications or services that requires Javascript. In these cases, Javascript is taking the place of what before might have been Java applets, Flash apps, or Silverlight applications. But it's arguably more secure, fairly standardized, and "installed" by default. And in the cases of full browser applications, I think it's silly to argue against requiring Javascript. You simply can't build a fully responsive client-side application using just HTTP calls and static HTML, no matter how performant the server side. And I will absolutely continue to use <noscript> tags for browser apps that run on Javascript, since it's rather rude to just show a white screen with no indication of what the problem is to users.

scrollaway 12y ago
I'd like people to start more readily differenciating between web apps and documents (dynamic or not). I think we're at the point where it's obvious that there is a difference between the two and it's just as obvious requiring JS for web apps is completely acceptable.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  I think you are getting at an important distinction, but you're confused about what it actually is. The important question is, "What is the goal of this site? What is the best way to still meet that goal without JS?" For documents, the answer is probably "provide the information", and that can trivially be accomplished without JS. For some excruciatingly dynamic web apps, the answer might be "use someone else's product" or even "it can't be done". There is substantial middle ground, though.
  - scrollaway 12y ago

dubcanada 12y ago

I think sacrificing functionality for 99% of users to accommodate 1% is sheer bloody mindedness. We can design our sites using a technique called Progressive Enhancement. Sounds to me like he just said you shouldn't do that, and then tells you to do it. You don't create a website, and then provide an enhanced version for those with javascript enabled. Not unless you are building a website in 1995. You provide a normal version and a degraded version for those with missing parts. The problem is Javascript is part of the browser, when you disable part of the browser. Stuff won't work... It's not up to the web developer to accommodate that. If someone has a virus on their computer, you don't build your website expecting ads to be placed on it. If someone has an extension that changes every word on the page that starts with v to cheese. You shouldn't rewrite your website to not use v words.

hawkice 12y ago

The author provides a fully general argument for supporting IE 5, Lynx, semantic HTML, lack of minification, testing with the website readers for blind people, and internationalizing immediately. I highly recommend discussing the actual cause of whether or not stuff like this gets done: is it worth the time? Saying you can use a technique to help out a very small portion of users, therefore you should, lacks the nuance that (we observe) people need to make these choices.

joelanman 12y ago

GOV.UK ran some stats on who wasn't running JavaScript and why: https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missi...

TheAceOfHearts 12y ago

For document-based websites, I go JS-free. My blog works without JS (except for comments, because they're from disqus and I'm lazy). And for public facing document websites it's usually possible to cache everything so it'll be REALLY fast. But if I'm making an actual application, it's a lot simpler to disregard users without JS. For example, I use angularjs, and if you take full advantage of it, you always just send the user the same index.html page and the server has a bunch of JSON API endpoints. Then you let the client-side router take over. If you really want to support JS-free users on your application, you're probably better of making a separate limited version of your application instead of having multiple fallbacks in the same page.

joshstrange 12y ago

I work on a web app that is half and half when it comes to depending on JS. The site started as MVC PHP app that was all server-side but over the years JS was added to do client-side validation and other UI/UX enhancements. In part because the customers asked for them and because something would have been extremely tedious and frustrating without JS+AJAX. As time wore on entire components were built with JS making them unusable with out it. I have some co-workers who want to move all logic back to the server side or at least provide fallbacks for non-JS users but I strongly oppose this. We have parts of our app that use google maps that would be completely unusable without JS and those parts are arguably the most important and central parts of our app. They want to approach it as "Lets make as many parts usable without JS as we can" while my opinion is "If parts of the app absolutely require JS and are heavily used parts then why waste our time worry about people with JS disabled". Especially since a lot of the server-side only parts of the app could be greatly enhanced with JS. I should also mention that this web app is NOT public facing and is only used by our call center (which we control the browser, newest chrome) and various groups of people using our software which so far all have JS enabled. I agree that a news website does not need to have JS-required pages for 99.999%+ of their content. If they are taking the time to enhance their site with JS then I believe they probably also have the time (and financial incentive) to make their sites work without JS. Web apps on the hand are a different story. Once you have a significant number of users it might make sense to invest the time in making a fallback or slimed down version (I'm thinking Google/Facebook/etc) but for most companies I don't think supporting a JS-disabled web is a good use of time.

mbell 12y ago
> I agree that a news website does not need to have JS-required pages for 99.999%+ of their content. I've seen this idea a number of times in this thread, it's far from true. The majority of advertising systems require JS. Without advertising, the news site has no income. As a result the internal discussion is going to be more like 'why waste any time at all to support the ~1% of users who will never generate any revenue'.
- joshstrange 12y ago
  You can still show ads with JS disabled at least some of the ads systems I have used have <noscript> tags following the JS include to show something still if JS is disabled. It's far less targeted for sure which in turn leads to less revenue from them. And I think it's fair for a free resource (This does not hold for news sites behind a paywall) to require JS so that they can make money off ads to in turn support the free viewing.

erkose 12y ago

An alternate view is: If your site requires javascript (or cookies or registration) we don't use it. There are plenty of sites that work better with javascript, but are still fully or mostly functional without it. This is where you will find those of us who choose not to allow sites to run javacript in our browser. As an example, nytimes requires registration. The registration page is the extent of my interaction with their site. I turned to theguardian many years ago, and, while I value nytimes, I wouldn't be able to quantify any meaningful difference between the two.

drabiega 12y ago

I've always considered disabling javascript or using something like adblock to be bad form. Ads are annoying, but they're paying for the content I'm consuming.

MildlySerious 12y ago
This is a whole new discussion in itself, but I was shocked when I disabled AdBlock for a website I frequent and like, just to see that flashbanners that make the whole websites background (ie. whitespace I use to navigate) clickable still exist. I wouldn't use half of those websites if it wasn't for AdBlock, so it's no loss for them. I'm trying not to punish the other half for that.

ised 12y ago

"Why do some users choose to disable Javascript?" Well, you could also ask why do some developers choose to write applications that retrieve HTML but do not process Javascript? If I recall correctly, for a while the links and elinks browsers experimented with processing Javascript but eventually if I'm not mistaken the developer decided to drop it in future versions. Why? I do not remember but I know that he did offer an explanation. I have always thought Javascript generally benefits web developers more than users. And this is not a quality inherent of the language, but it has to do with how this particular language is used in practice. When I download someone else's C code, compile and run it, I generally have a rough idea of what that code is going to do. When a "modern web browser" (=not a text-only one) runs any and all Javascript from any web resource, I generally have no clue what that code is going to do. These browsers will automatically load resources from many sources other the one hosting the page to which the user navigates. They will make numerous connections to other addresses (to retrieve "third-party resources") instead of just one to the address the user specifies. Often the Javascript code is coming from a third party. Imagine a pop-up asking for permission each time the browser wants to run Javascript code from somewhere. In the early days of browsers, if I recall correctly, you could require the browser to do this (and the same goes for accepting cookies). I never considered this practical back then and it is certainly not a solution that would be practical today. And today, when the company that writes the "modern web browser" assures me that it will protect me from malicious Javascript, I have no clue what the "modern web browser" itself is going to do to try to accomplish that. Because I cannot easily compile the "modern web browser" myself. It is not meant to be compiled by users. There is a large amount of implied trust. It's somewhat like downloading random Windows applications one finds on the www, installing them and running them. Do you trust that Microsoft or some anti-virus company will protect you? That is a tall order. Whereas if you merely refrain from downloading and installing such programs, if you refrain from blindly opening attachments in email, then you avoid that risk. By not running Javascript, the user avoids the risk of malicious Javascript, and may even avoid the need for a "modern web browser"... and thereby the high complexity (=higher risk of insecurity) that comes with it. Keeping the user safe from malicious Javascript is a tall order for any browser to fill. All that said, if I the user can get the information I want from the www without having to run Javascript and hence a "modern web browser", then I will always choose the non-Javascript option simply because _it is often faster and more efficient_, regardless of any possible security benefits. Thankfully, I rarely need the "modern web browser", even for webmail. It is true that Javascript is frequently an impediment that stands between the user and fast and efficient computing but in my experience it is rarely a show stopper for the user who disables it. To answer the OP's question: No, as a developer, I do not think you should care. Javascript is a fun language and people will pay you to write in it. For the Javascript developer, life is good. Carry on.

EGreg 12y ago

One consideration remains: what shows up on the screen before JS goes to work. Otherwise you should probably fade in the contents as they're loading.