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

Groups > comp.misc > #4900 > unrolled thread

Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-15 10:18 +0000
    Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-09-15 11:30 +0100
      Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-15 10:34 +0000
        Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-09-15 20:27 +0000
          Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-15 22:23 +0000
    Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-09-15 14:32 +0100
      Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-15 22:27 +0000
        Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-16 04:26 -0300
          Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-16 10:08 +0000
        Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-09-16 14:34 -0400
        Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-09-16 20:12 +0000
          Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-18 15:39 -0300
            Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-09-18 20:25 +0100
              Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-09-18 23:41 +0300
              Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-09-19 12:56 +0200
                Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-09-19 12:57 +0100
                Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-19 15:50 -0300
                  Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-09-19 21:57 +0100
            Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-18 23:32 +0000
              Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-09-19 16:37 +0000
                Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-09-19 20:19 +0200
      Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Underactive Moth <underactivemoth@gmail.com> - 2014-09-16 08:21 +0000
        Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-16 10:10 +0000
        Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-09-16 13:57 +0100
    Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-09-15 14:24 +0000
      Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-15 14:37 -0300
        Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-09-15 20:20 +0000
          Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-16 04:14 -0300
    Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-19 07:40 +0000
      Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-09-20 02:42 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#4991

On 2014-09-19, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2014-09-18, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Which just goes to prove that the "intuitiveness" of the GUI's isn't so
>> "intuitive".  They are only "intuitive" _after_ you've learned what the
>> pictures mean. 
>
> *applause*

I found a prime example of that just an hour ago.  According to the the Ars
article here

<http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/09/ios-8-thoroughly-reviewed/3/>
(see keyboard image half way down that page)

the Emoji keyboard is enabled by default.  Pressing the globe symbol
for the first time pops up a window explaining what it does.  Not only
does it bring up the Emoji keyboard but when held down you can select 
from the on screen keyboards you have enabled.

A little experimentation shows how well this has been thought out.  Here I
have both UK and Swiss German keyboards setup.  Select UK QWERTZ and then
the (unambiguous) microphone symbol and I can dictate in English, select
Swiss German QWERTZ and I can dictate in German.  Very neat!

Now off to enable the French keyboard and see if it can understand my
somewhat rusty French :-)

-- 
Ernesto "Che" Guevera, commonly known as el Che, was an Argentinian
t-shirt tycoon.                                  -- TL;DR Wikipedia

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

#4924

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
> 
> > http://mortoray.com/2014/09/15/blocking-javascript-seems-like-a-good-idea/
> 
> Later:
> 
>   "As a website designer it’s a big problem for me though. HTML and CSS
>   are simply not adequate for doing a lot of basic presentation. Used
>   correctly, simple interactive features can provide a huge benefit to
>   user experience. From simple hiding and revealing of information, to

I do not understand this website designer's goal. Why would I
want information hidden from me?

>   providing interactive forms that guide the user, or presenting voting
>   and rating buttons for articles."
> 
> All of which can be provided without client-side scripting.  "Used
> correctly" (to borrow the author's own term) such scripting should do no
> more than improve on the functionality that is there for all visitors.
> Many designers don't seem to be able to build sites that operate
> perfectly well without JS, but with JS enhancements for those that like
> that kind of thing.

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

#4928

Underactive Moth <underactivemoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> > Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
> > 
> > > http://mortoray.com/2014/09/15/blocking-javascript-seems-like-a-good-idea/
> > 
> > Later:
> > 
> >   "As a website designer it?s a big problem for me though. HTML and CSS
> >   are simply not adequate for doing a lot of basic presentation. Used
> >   correctly, simple interactive features can provide a huge benefit to
> >   user experience. From simple hiding and revealing of information, to

> I do not understand this website designer's goal. Why would I
> want information hidden from me?

It is the MS thought method applied to the web: "the user is too stupid
to read a list of 10 bullet points listed as 10 bullet points - so we
have to hide 9 of the bullet points at a time and spoon feed him/her
one bullet point at a time".

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

#4931

Underactive Moth <underactivemoth@gmail.com> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
>> 
>> > http://mortoray.com/2014/09/15/blocking-javascript-seems-like-a-good-idea/
>> 
>> Later:
>> 
>>   "As a website designer it’s a big problem for me though. HTML and CSS
>>   are simply not adequate for doing a lot of basic presentation. Used
>>   correctly, simple interactive features can provide a huge benefit to
>>   user experience. From simple hiding and revealing of information, to
>
> I do not understand this website designer's goal. Why would I
> want information hidden from me?

Sure, if hidden is meant in one particular way, but I doubt that's what
the author means.  It can be helpful to have different views of the
information; for example, a "show me more" button can help to un-clutter
a summary page.  It's still debatable whether it's a good idea, but
there is probably no desire to hide the information from you.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

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

#4910

On 2014-09-15, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> http://mortoray.com/2014/09/15/blocking-javascript-seems-like-a-good-idea/
>
>    My fancy new website is broken due to a script blocking extension. I
>    found this out when I showed a friend the Radial Blitz website. He
>    complained that something was lacking. He turned on screen sharing to
>    show me and sure enough my large screenshot slider was nowhere to be
>    seen.
>
>    Turns out a script blocking extension was causing the problem. Obviously
>    I didn't expect the slide show to function, but I expected at least a
>    static image. The theme designer likely never even considered that
>    somebody would have JavaScript disabled. Should they, or is JavaScript a
>    critical web technology?
>
>    I don't think it's useful to argue for JavaScript, it's features are
>    well known and I find it invaluable. Instead I'd like to consider why
>    somebody would disable it. To my own chagrin, my list seems to support
>    their position.
>
>    ...

If a website doesn't work effectively in Lynx (text only, no CSS, no
sripts, no plugins) then it's "over designed".  Sadly, many sites only
barely work in Lynx - but they are just about usable.

If you want me to see a picture or hear some sounds or watch a movie
clip, put a 'link' to it in the page and I'll follow the link if I'm
interested.

In practice, I do use a graphical browser most of the time - but with
Javascript disabled, selective content blocking or ad-blocking in
operation, and possibly with my own CSS imposed to make things legible.
I'll enable javascript or plugins if moved to do so, but I'd rather not.

When I relied on dial-up internet, I disabled 'images' too by default.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

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

#4912

Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> writes:

> If a website doesn't work effectively in Lynx (text only, no CSS, no
> sripts, no plugins) then it's "over designed".  Sadly, many sites only
> barely work in Lynx - but they are just about usable.
> 
> If you want me to see a picture or hear some sounds or watch a movie
> clip, put a 'link' to it in the page and I'll follow the link if I'm
> interested.
> 
> In practice, I do use a graphical browser most of the time - but with
> Javascript disabled, selective content blocking or ad-blocking in
> operation, and possibly with my own CSS imposed to make things legible.
> I'll enable javascript or plugins if moved to do so, but I'd rather not.
> 
> When I relied on dial-up internet, I disabled 'images' too by default.

Just for the  record, that's pretty much my position too.  

And I still have dialup at home. (Just getting going with a
wi-fi-enabled new laptop for fetching big downloads. Still hacking on
the "modern" browser to get it to stop doing all the unwanted crap.)
It's a big LOSE that Moz has obfuscated the js on/off switch in
Firefox. 


-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

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

#4914

Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> 
> Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> writes:
> 
>> If a website doesn't work effectively in Lynx (text only, no CSS, no
>> sripts, no plugins) then it's "over designed".  Sadly, many sites only
>> barely work in Lynx - but they are just about usable.
>> 
>> If you want me to see a picture or hear some sounds or watch a movie
>> clip, put a 'link' to it in the page and I'll follow the link if I'm
>> interested.
>> 
>> In practice, I do use a graphical browser most of the time - but with
>> Javascript disabled, selective content blocking or ad-blocking in
>> operation, and possibly with my own CSS imposed to make things legible.
>> I'll enable javascript or plugins if moved to do so, but I'd rather not.
>> 
>> When I relied on dial-up internet, I disabled 'images' too by default.
> 
> Just for the  record, that's pretty much my position too.  
> 
> And I still have dialup at home. (Just getting going with a
> wi-fi-enabled new laptop for fetching big downloads. Still hacking on
> the "modern" browser to get it to stop doing all the unwanted crap.)
> It's a big LOSE that Moz has obfuscated the js on/off switch in
> Firefox. 

Hi Mike, at a minimum, install noscript & flashblock. Noscript makes
the js on/off setting site specific, while flashblock keeps annoying
videos from automatically playing.

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

#4921

Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> writes:

> Hi Mike, at a minimum, install noscript & flashblock. Noscript makes
> the js on/off setting site specific, while flashblock keeps annoying
> videos from automatically playing.

Noted. Thanks for the pointers. Never had to trhink about any of that
before.  Major upside to an "obsolete" browser.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

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

#4981

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> http://mortoray.com/2014/09/15/blocking-javascript-seems-like-a-good-idea/
> 
>    My fancy new website is broken due to a script blocking extension. I
>    found this out when I showed a friend the Radial Blitz website. He
>    complained that something was lacking. He turned on screen sharing to
>    show me and sure enough my large screenshot slider was nowhere to be
>    seen.
> 
>    Turns out a script blocking extension was causing the problem. Obviously
>    I didn't expect the slide show to function, but I expected at least a
>    static image. The theme designer likely never even considered that
>    somebody would have JavaScript disabled. Should they, or is JavaScript a
>    critical web technology?
> 
>    I don't think it's useful to argue for JavaScript, it's features are
>    well known and I find it invaluable. Instead I'd like to consider why
>    somebody would disable it. To my own chagrin, my list seems to support
>    their position.
> 
>    ...

I browse with JavaScript disabled by default on my iPad, simply for speed. 
The original iPad can bog down with all the scripts people run these days.

I use aggressive script filtering on my workstation as well.  Seems that
most JS is pure advertising shite or just eye candy at this point.

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

#4997

On 2014-09-19, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I browse with JavaScript disabled by default on my iPad, simply for speed. 
> The original iPad can bog down with all the scripts people run these days.
>
> I use aggressive script filtering on my workstation as well.  Seems that
> most JS is pure advertising shite or just eye candy at this point.

Malware too:

"Large-scale malvertising campaign hidden in online ads hits Last.fm"

<http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2371234/large-scale-malvertising-campaign-hidden-in-online-ads-hits-lastfm>

-- 
"Trustworthy Computing" is dead - one-third engineers, two-thirds PRs
                           - Caspar Bowden, Former Microsoft staffer

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web