4 ms·

Well, I know I'm not your average user, but a website that only displays a spinner to noscript users doesn't exactly make me very confident that this browser wi

Well, I know I'm not your average user, but a website that only displays a spinner to noscript users doesn't exactly make me very confident that this browser will help to make a better www.

phpnode 12y ago
You have chosen to break your own web experience, I'm not sure why you're complaining.
- nkuttler 12y ago
  When I started to use the web there were campaigns like best viewed in any browser, and the browser wars were just starting. I didn't realize that sharing my sentiment would be perceived as complaining. I know how to disable noscript.
  - drdaeman 12y ago
    The times had changed. Semantic Web is dead. Nobody anymore gives a damn about that, everyone's drunk the kool-aid of webapps. Everyone used to hate Flash, but it's perceived as normal when the pages are bundled a good chunk of rendering/layout engine to run inside your browser engine. Can't track you and serve you advertisements with plain hypertext documents, duh.
- jiffytick 12y ago
  The issue here is not GP's browsing experience. It's the fact that they failed to address such an elementry UX usecase that should not have occured in the first place; eithrr degrade gracefully or use a noscript tag. This failure is unacceptable if they are the same folks who are working on the web browser, seeing that its UVP is mostly UX. No need to let your biases leak out when noscri.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  If they can't write a web page, why should I trust them to write a browser?
  - nkuttler 12y ago
    To be fair, the people who build the website probably aren't the same who build the browser.
bobbles 12y ago
If you use noscript you have to accept that you will lose functionality. deal with it.
- drdaeman 12y ago
  You have a point, yet, it's somehow fugly that to read text content and a few static images you have to remotely download and execute a piece of software. You have one already. Think about a "better web".
  - nirvdrum 12y ago
    Not only that, but unnecessarily using JavaScript means higher CPU burn, more memory allocation, and subsequently greater battery depletion. One of these days I'm going to make a database of web site carbon footprints...
    - touristtam 12y ago
      Please do, I'll be very interested to see it. :)
- cbd1984 12y ago
  They can't write a web page. What makes anyone think they'll write a usable browser?
orbifold 12y ago
It just occurred to me that if the site uses Google fonts and you don't want to be tracked by Google you are pretty much out of luck, too.
- drdaeman 12y ago
  It's your software on your machine doing the requests. If you can't control it, this is a really bad omen. µMatrix/Policeman, do not allow requests to fonts.googleapis.com (IIRC fonts are served as CSSes from this host, but actual font files are served from the other hostname), done.
justin_vanw 12y ago
Instead of noscript, you should just run the javascript, and then if you want to be safe run it again, backwards. That way it's idempotent and can't cause any problems. The downside is that you'll forget everything as you unread it.
Zecc 12y ago
As a noscript user myself, seeing a spinner is already quite an achievement. Lots and lots of sites out there - even ones with only static content - appear absolutely blank.

Well, I know I'm not your average user, but a website that only displays a spinner to noscript users doesn't exactly make me very confident that this browser will help to make a better www.

phpnode 12y ago

You have chosen to break your own web experience, I'm not sure why you're complaining.

nkuttler 12y ago
When I started to use the web there were campaigns like best viewed in any browser, and the browser wars were just starting. I didn't realize that sharing my sentiment would be perceived as complaining. I know how to disable noscript.
- drdaeman 12y ago
  The times had changed. Semantic Web is dead. Nobody anymore gives a damn about that, everyone's drunk the kool-aid of webapps. Everyone used to hate Flash, but it's perceived as normal when the pages are bundled a good chunk of rendering/layout engine to run inside your browser engine. Can't track you and serve you advertisements with plain hypertext documents, duh.
jiffytick 12y ago
The issue here is not GP's browsing experience. It's the fact that they failed to address such an elementry UX usecase that should not have occured in the first place; eithrr degrade gracefully or use a noscript tag. This failure is unacceptable if they are the same folks who are working on the web browser, seeing that its UVP is mostly UX. No need to let your biases leak out when noscri.
cbd1984 12y ago
If they can't write a web page, why should I trust them to write a browser?
- nkuttler 12y ago
  To be fair, the people who build the website probably aren't the same who build the browser.

bobbles 12y ago

If you use noscript you have to accept that you will lose functionality. deal with it.

drdaeman 12y ago
You have a point, yet, it's somehow fugly that to read text content and a few static images you have to remotely download and execute a piece of software. You have one already. Think about a "better web".
- nirvdrum 12y ago
  Not only that, but unnecessarily using JavaScript means higher CPU burn, more memory allocation, and subsequently greater battery depletion. One of these days I'm going to make a database of web site carbon footprints...
  - touristtam 12y ago
    Please do, I'll be very interested to see it. :)
cbd1984 12y ago
They can't write a web page. What makes anyone think they'll write a usable browser?

orbifold 12y ago

It just occurred to me that if the site uses Google fonts and you don't want to be tracked by Google you are pretty much out of luck, too.

drdaeman 12y ago
It's your software on your machine doing the requests. If you can't control it, this is a really bad omen. µMatrix/Policeman, do not allow requests to fonts.googleapis.com (IIRC fonts are served as CSSes from this host, but actual font files are served from the other hostname), done.

justin_vanw 12y ago

Instead of noscript, you should just run the javascript, and then if you want to be safe run it again, backwards. That way it's idempotent and can't cause any problems. The downside is that you'll forget everything as you unread it.

Zecc 12y ago

As a noscript user myself, seeing a spinner is already quite an achievement. Lots and lots of sites out there - even ones with only static content - appear absolutely blank.