3 ms·
I disabled JS and the page looks fine. Either way, this seems like a complaint unrelated to the content of the page, your personal preference, while valid, does
by codezero 12y ago
I disabled JS and the page looks fine. Either way, this seems like a complaint unrelated to the content of the page, your personal preference, while valid, doesn't make this content any less interesting.
- dredmorbius 12y agoHN is a technical news site, and technical commentary on the aspects of given sites are fairly common. I don't expect all here to agree with my viewpoints, or even agree with the statements I make (though I'll reassert: the page failed to load until I allowed JS temporarily from the primary domain). But I'll comment on: ⚫ Sites which fail without JS ⚫ Sites with horribly broken UX/UI ⚫ Sites with poor contrast: http://www.contrastrebellion.com/ http://www.contrastrebellion.com/ ⚫ Sites with poor privacy or other features ⚫ Sites with crippled access (e.g., Quora or Scribd) ⚫ Sites with broken or unusable multimedia (I've just spent more minutes than I care trying to view a WashPo-related science video...) Thanks for your kind thoughts and concern.
- codezero 12y agoFair enough, my main point was that it looks like it loads exactly the same with JS disabled compared to without it being disabled, my additional commentary was tangential, but if we're all complaining about stuff, can't I too? :)
- dredmorbius 12y agoIt's possible (I haven't checked) that enabling/disabling JS caches content that's required to view the page. Which is another reason I really hate QAing / capability / compatibility testing websites.
- codezero 12y agoPlausible. I loaded the site with TorBrowser with NoScript on, and it looks fine still, are you using Lynx? :)
- dredmorbius 12y agoChromium.