Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #14415 > unrolled thread

Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-08 08:51 -0700
    Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-05-08 17:14 -0300
      Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2012-05-08 15:36 -0500
        Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-08 13:51 -0700
          Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2012-05-08 16:01 -0500
            Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-08 14:15 -0700
              Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2012-05-08 16:41 -0500
                Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-08 15:19 -0700
                Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-08 15:21 -0700
            Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-08 15:05 -0700
          Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-05-08 19:12 -0300
            Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-05-10 19:05 -0700
          Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-08 21:03 -0400
            Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-08 20:52 -0700
              Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-05-09 06:58 -0400
                Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-09 12:04 -0700
              Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-09 10:06 -0700
              Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-10 20:20 -0400
                Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Bent C Dalager <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> - 2012-05-11 09:09 +0000
                  Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-11 09:41 -0700
                    Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2012-05-12 01:30 -0400
                      Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Sleepy the Dwarf <std75821@gmail.com> - 2012-05-13 08:40 -0400
                    Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 22:37 -0400
                      Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-20 20:25 -0700
                      Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Bent C Dalager <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> - 2012-05-21 19:31 +0000
                  Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 22:35 -0400
                    Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Bent C Dalager <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> - 2012-05-21 19:26 +0000
                      Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Kev Warren <k.warren312@noobnot.notnoob.org> - 2012-05-21 17:36 -0400
        Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-08 13:59 -0700
          Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-08 21:04 -0400
            Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-08 20:54 -0700
              Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-10 20:23 -0400
        Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2012-05-08 15:32 -0700
        Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-05-10 16:36 -0700
      Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-08 21:13 -0400
        Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-05-09 16:50 -0300
          Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-10 20:26 -0400
    Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-08 21:19 -0400
    Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-05-09 14:42 -0700
      Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-05-10 17:07 -0500
      Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-10 20:19 -0400
        Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-20 22:33 -0400

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#14415 — Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to)

     This was in the morning's trade articles:

www.infoworld.com/d/security/why-you-cant-dump-java-even-though-you-want-192622
InfoWorld Home / Security / Security Adviser
May 08, 2012
Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to)
So many recent exploits have used Java as their attack vector, you
might conclude Java should be shown the exit
By Roger A. Grimes | InfoWorld

     Comments?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#14418

On 12-05-08 12:51 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>      This was in the morning's trade articles:
> 
> www.infoworld.com/d/security/why-you-cant-dump-java-even-though-you-want-192622
> InfoWorld Home / Security / Security Adviser
> May 08, 2012
> Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to)
> So many recent exploits have used Java as their attack vector, you
> might conclude Java should be shown the exit
> By Roger A. Grimes | InfoWorld
> 
>      Comments?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Gene Wirchenko

I tend to agree with what Grimes wrote on the second page of his
article. As he pointed out, popular software always gets exploited. Part
of it is due to defects in the software, so in Java in this case, but a
major part of it for a programming language and platform (JVM) is how
people code in it. How many Java programmers have genuinely absorbed the
lessons in "Secure Coding Guidelines for the Java Programming Language",
or now the "CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java"? 5 percent? 1
percent? No way is it any higher than that.

The main problem is the human being, whether coder or user.

AHS
-- 
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
--Napoleon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14419

On 5/8/2012 3:14 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

>
> The main problem is the human being, whether coder or user.
>
> AHS

There are now Trojans and viruses that attack the PC
using JavaScript.

One can't really shut down JavaScript in the browser like they can
with the Java plugin to prevent applets from running.

I think the whole internet is doomed. no where to run and hide
any more.


--Nasser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14420

On 5/8/2012 1:36 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 3:14 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
>>
>> The main problem is the human being, whether coder or user.
>>
>> AHS
>
> There are now Trojans and viruses that attack the PC
> using JavaScript.
>
> One can't really shut down JavaScript in the browser like they can
> with the Java plugin to prevent applets from running.


Yes you can.  I run Firefox with NoScript, an add-on that blocks 
JavaScript.  Most sites work OK without JavaScript.  If I really need 
to, NoScript makes it easy for me to temporarily enable a single website.

In some cases, the problem is the platform.  I.e., JavaScript, or 
ActiveX.  But there's work-arounds too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14422

On 5/8/2012 3:51 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 1:36 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 3:14 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The main problem is the human being, whether coder or user.
>>>
>>> AHS
>>
>> There are now Trojans and viruses that attack the PC
>> using JavaScript.
>>
>> One can't really shut down JavaScript in the browser like they can
>> with the Java plugin to prevent applets from running.
>
>

> Yes you can.  I run Firefox with NoScript, an add-on that blocks
> JavaScript.  Most sites work OK without JavaScript.  If I really need
> to, NoScript makes it easy for me to temporarily enable a single website.
>
> In some cases, the problem is the platform.  I.e., JavaScript, or
> ActiveX.  But there's work-arounds too.
>

Well, I know I can turn off Javascript from firefox, it is
easy. Tools->Options->Content->uncheck Javascript.

The point is, browsing the internet is almost useless when
JavaScript is off. How will you browse Yahoo, Google, etc..
with no JavaScript? Many things do not work any more. Some do yes,
but many things needs JavaScript to work.

It feels like driving a car with no wheels attached to it. Not
a fun thing to do.

--Nasser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14424

On 5/8/2012 2:01 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:

> The point is, browsing the internet is almost useless when
> JavaScript is off.


Read what I wrote again.  "NoScript makes it easy to temporarily enable 
JavaScript for a single website."

Emphasis on the "makes it easy" and the "single website."

Using that feature allows me to browse safely, while still retaining the 
option to quickly turn JS back on if I need it for a given website.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14425

On 5/8/2012 4:15 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 2:01 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>
>> The point is, browsing the internet is almost useless when
>> JavaScript is off.
>
>
> Read what I wrote again.  "NoScript makes it easy to temporarily enable
> JavaScript for a single website."
>

And you read what I wrote again. I said it is very easy for
me to turn off Javascript and turn it on.

But for me, this is no way to browse the internet.

When I click on something and it does not work, then I
have to turn on javascript. Then remember to turn it off
again, then on again, then off again. I'll be spending
my day turning off and on Javascript.

If this works for you, fine. Not for me.

--Nasser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14430

On Tue, 08 May 2012 16:41:31 -0500, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org>
wrote:

>On 5/8/2012 4:15 PM, markspace wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 2:01 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>>
>>> The point is, browsing the internet is almost useless when
>>> JavaScript is off.

>> Read what I wrote again.  "NoScript makes it easy to temporarily enable
>> JavaScript for a single website."

>And you read what I wrote again. I said it is very easy for
>me to turn off Javascript and turn it on.
>
>But for me, this is no way to browse the internet.
>
>When I click on something and it does not work, then I
>have to turn on javascript. Then remember to turn it off
>again, then on again, then off again. I'll be spending
>my day turning off and on Javascript.

     When I try opening a door and it is locked, then I have get out
my keys and unlock the door.  Then I have to remember to lock the door
again.  Unlock and lock.  I will be spending my day unlocking and
locking doors.

>If this works for you, fine. Not for me.

     Leaving the barn door open has advantages but also significant
downside.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14431

On 5/8/2012 2:41 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:

> And you read what I wrote again. I said it is very easy for
> me to turn off Javascript and turn it on.


What you said was:


"> The point is, browsing the internet is almost useless when
 > JavaScript is off."


Which is false.

> When I click on something and it does not work, then I
> have to turn on javascript. Then remember to turn it off
> again, then on again, then off again. I'll be spending
> my day turning off and on Javascript.


This is what I'm trying to explain to you, if you'll listen.  NoSript 
DOES NOT WORK LIKE THIS.

I enable JavaScript for ONE SITE.  No other sites.  I don't have to turn 
JavaScript back off because it's still off for all other sites.  Usually 
I just use the "temporary" option so JS is enabled for one session. 
When I quit, JS is back off again for all my temporary sites.

Sometimes I visit a site often enough that I enable it permanently, but 
I have relatively few of those.

GET NOSCRIPT ALREADY and stop complaining that "it doesn't work" because 
you have no idea what you are talking about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14428

On Tue, 08 May 2012 16:01:07 -0500, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org>
wrote:

>On 5/8/2012 3:51 PM, markspace wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 1:36 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2012 3:14 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

>>>> The main problem is the human being, whether coder or user.

>>> There are now Trojans and viruses that attack the PC
>>> using JavaScript.
>>>
>>> One can't really shut down JavaScript in the browser like they can
>>> with the Java plugin to prevent applets from running.

>> Yes you can.  I run Firefox with NoScript, an add-on that blocks
>> JavaScript.  Most sites work OK without JavaScript.  If I really need
>> to, NoScript makes it easy for me to temporarily enable a single website.
>>
>> In some cases, the problem is the platform.  I.e., JavaScript, or
>> ActiveX.  But there's work-arounds too.

>Well, I know I can turn off Javascript from firefox, it is
>easy. Tools->Options->Content->uncheck Javascript.
>
>The point is, browsing the internet is almost useless when
>JavaScript is off. How will you browse Yahoo, Google, etc..

     Not even close.  I use Firefox and NoScript as well.  There are
few sites that I frequent that need JavaScript.

>with no JavaScript? Many things do not work any more. Some do yes,

     You need better examples.  Both Yahoo! and Google work without
JavaScript (at least, the basic search function).

>but many things needs JavaScript to work.
>
>It feels like driving a car with no wheels attached to it. Not
>a fun thing to do.

     No, it is like driving a car with no chrome on it.  One might
miss it a bit, but it is not necessary in order to drive.

     Some sites do make it very difficult.  On some sites, clicking on
a link requires JavaScript to be executed.  The <a> tag works fine
without JavaScript so this is bogosity.  I tend to very quickly leave
such sites and not go back.

     I have wondered why no one has come up with a limited JavaScript
that does not allow such attacks.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14429

On 12-05-08 05:51 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 1:36 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 3:14 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The main problem is the human being, whether coder or user.
>>>
>>> AHS
>>
>> There are now Trojans and viruses that attack the PC
>> using JavaScript.
>>
>> One can't really shut down JavaScript in the browser like they can
>> with the Java plugin to prevent applets from running.
> 
> 
> Yes you can.  I run Firefox with NoScript, an add-on that blocks
> JavaScript.  Most sites work OK without JavaScript.  If I really need
> to, NoScript makes it easy for me to temporarily enable a single website.
> 
> In some cases, the problem is the platform.  I.e., JavaScript, or
> ActiveX.  But there's work-arounds too.
> 

I do the same thing: as much as possible I use various combos of Adblock
Plus/Opera Adblock, Do Not Track Plus, Ghostery, Priv3, NotScripts etc
in all of my browsers on all OS's. Not to mention cranking up the
browsers' own mechanisms as much as possible. I also find that most
sites work when imposed with severe restrictions - the ones that don't I
just dismiss, unless they are among a handful that I need and I
temporarily enable the minimum just like you.

AHS
-- 
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
--Napoleon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14472

On 5/8/2012 3:12 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 12-05-08 05:51 PM, markspace wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 1:36 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2012 3:14 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The main problem is the human being, whether coder or user.
>>>>
>>>> AHS
>>>
>>> There are now Trojans and viruses that attack the PC
>>> using JavaScript.
>>>
>>> One can't really shut down JavaScript in the browser like they can
>>> with the Java plugin to prevent applets from running.
>>
>>
>> Yes you can.  I run Firefox with NoScript, an add-on that blocks
>> JavaScript.  Most sites work OK without JavaScript.  If I really need
>> to, NoScript makes it easy for me to temporarily enable a single website.
>>
>> In some cases, the problem is the platform.  I.e., JavaScript, or
>> ActiveX.  But there's work-arounds too.
>>
>
> I do the same thing: as much as possible I use various combos of Adblock
> Plus/Opera Adblock, Do Not Track Plus, Ghostery, Priv3, NotScripts etc
> in all of my browsers on all OS's. Not to mention cranking up the
> browsers' own mechanisms as much as possible. I also find that most
> sites work when imposed with severe restrictions - the ones that don't I
> just dismiss, unless they are among a handful that I need and I
> temporarily enable the minimum just like you.
>

I had used AdBlock and similar, but ironically, it was not for sake of 
either security or dislike of banner ads, but rather, to reduce the 
often severe browser lag caused occasionally by typically Flash-based 
banner ads.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14434

On 5/8/2012 4:51 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 1:36 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 3:14 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> The main problem is the human being, whether coder or user.
>>
>> There are now Trojans and viruses that attack the PC
>> using JavaScript.
>>
>> One can't really shut down JavaScript in the browser like they can
>> with the Java plugin to prevent applets from running.
>
>
> Yes you can. I run Firefox with NoScript, an add-on that blocks
> JavaScript. Most sites work OK without JavaScript. If I really need to,
> NoScript makes it easy for me to temporarily enable a single website.

That worked fine 10 years ago.

In these AJAX times the number of sites working without
JavaScript must be dropping pretty steep.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14441

On 5/8/2012 6:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> That worked fine 10 years ago.
>
> In these AJAX times the number of sites working without
> JavaScript must be dropping pretty steep.


A lot of sites don't work without JavaScript enabled.  But many work 
well enough.  It's a matter of playing the odds.  The more sites you go 
to with JavaScript disabled by default, the less likely it is that 
you'll get some sort of malware from them.

Sure I often have to enable JS, but only after I've seen the site first. 
  If it looks dodgy, I just leave.  And often I can still click on a few 
links or read an article without JS.  It's rare I'll enable JS if I just 
need one thing from a site.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14447

On 5/8/2012 11:52 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 6:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> That worked fine 10 years ago.
>>
>> In these AJAX times the number of sites working without
>> JavaScript must be dropping pretty steep.
>
>
> A lot of sites don't work without JavaScript enabled. But many work well
> enough. It's a matter of playing the odds. The more sites you go to with
> JavaScript disabled by default, the less likely it is that you'll get
> some sort of malware from them.

     For even more security, disable HTML.

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14509

Eric Sosman wrote:
> markspace wrote:
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> That worked fine 10 years ago.
>>>
>>> In these AJAX times the number of sites working without
>>> JavaScript must be dropping pretty steep.
>>
>> A lot of sites don't work without JavaScript enabled. But many work well
>> enough. It's a matter of playing the odds. The more sites you go to with
>> JavaScript disabled by default, the less likely it is that you'll get
>> some sort of malware from them.
> 
>      For even more security, disable HTML.

For even more even more security, disable the Internet and don't use a computer.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14451

On Tue, 08 May 2012 20:52:39 -0700, markspace <-@.> wrote:

>On 5/8/2012 6:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> That worked fine 10 years ago.
>>
>> In these AJAX times the number of sites working without
>> JavaScript must be dropping pretty steep.

>A lot of sites don't work without JavaScript enabled.  But many work 
>well enough.  It's a matter of playing the odds.  The more sites you go 
>to with JavaScript disabled by default, the less likely it is that 
>you'll get some sort of malware from them.
>
>Sure I often have to enable JS, but only after I've seen the site first. 
>  If it looks dodgy, I just leave.  And often I can still click on a few 
>links or read an article without JS.  It's rare I'll enable JS if I just 
>need one thing from a site.

     This is my experience, too.  There are a lot of sites.  Few
really need the JavaScript.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14467

On 5/8/2012 11:52 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 6:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> That worked fine 10 years ago.
>>
>> In these AJAX times the number of sites working without
>> JavaScript must be dropping pretty steep.
>
> A lot of sites don't work without JavaScript enabled. But many work well
> enough. It's a matter of playing the odds. The more sites you go to with
> JavaScript disabled by default, the less likely it is that you'll get
> some sort of malware from them.
>
> Sure I often have to enable JS, but only after I've seen the site first.
> If it looks dodgy, I just leave. And often I can still click on a few
> links or read an article without JS. It's rare I'll enable JS if I just
> need one thing from a site.

That does not sound as 2012 to me.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14479

On 2012-05-11, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 11:52 PM, markspace wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 6:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>> Sure I often have to enable JS, but only after I've seen the site first.
>> If it looks dodgy, I just leave. And often I can still click on a few
>> links or read an article without JS. It's rare I'll enable JS if I just
>> need one thing from a site.
>
> That does not sound as 2012 to me.

I think it's generally well accepted that using protection may detract
from the experience somewhat, but this does not automatically make it
a bad idea to do so. :-)

Personally, if someone expects me to spend my time on their website
they better provide a compelling reason for me to want to do so, and
gratuitous dependence on JS just puts me off. In general I consider it
a good early indicator of a terrible web designer: "You need JS to
click this link", right so this guy taught himself web design in his
own dreams.

Bent D.
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14481

On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:09:48 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
<bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:

>On 2012-05-11, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 11:52 PM, markspace wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2012 6:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure I often have to enable JS, but only after I've seen the site first.
>>> If it looks dodgy, I just leave. And often I can still click on a few
>>> links or read an article without JS. It's rare I'll enable JS if I just
>>> need one thing from a site.
>>
>> That does not sound as 2012 to me.

     I decide on site use by something other than fashion.

     There are many Websites that are not decked out in a fashionable
manner but that are very useful.  I prefer them.

>I think it's generally well accepted that using protection may detract
>from the experience somewhat, but this does not automatically make it
>a bad idea to do so. :-)
>
>Personally, if someone expects me to spend my time on their website
>they better provide a compelling reason for me to want to do so, and
>gratuitous dependence on JS just puts me off. In general I consider it
>a good early indicator of a terrible web designer: "You need JS to
>click this link", right so this guy taught himself web design in his
>own dreams.

     Exactly.  Except that the JS-to-click design might also be due to
a gratuitous complexity bug (in the coder).

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web