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


Groups > comp.misc > #4927

Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea

From Rich <rich@example.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.misc
Subject Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea
Date 2014-09-16 10:08 +0000
Organization My Linux Box
Message-ID <lv926g$fb3$2@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <FFMZh+gZtKnIvllfI6s+Dsz7@dont-email.me> <878ull3t7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lv7p5d$8jf$2@dont-email.me> <87r3zcm3fw.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>

Show all headers | View raw


Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> > I suspect some of the problem is that these "designers" are unable to
> > think past their latest idea for eye candy to realize that those who
> > have javascript turned off (or like myself, blocked by default via
> > noscript) would be perfectly happy with a 1994 layout of the
> > informational content of the site.
> > 
> > They somehow think the eye candy add's informational value (usually it
> > does not, it just adds eye candy).
> > 
> > I'd be fine with the text information looking like it was a 1994 web
> > page.

> <SMUG>
> I'm a highly literate person, quick with text, spent decades getting
> that way. Good at it.  Show me the words.
> </SMUG>

+1

> Only that's orthogonal to marketing.  It's largely orthogonal to
> managing the user's "experience".  Shpx, I'll manage my own
> experiences, TYVM.  I just can't get over how the people who want to
> *sell* you their product create mare's nests of Webstoff [1] to
> obfuscate the info about it.

Probably because they realize that if they "just" gave you the text,
they would also have to admit to you that their newfangled 2.0 gadget
is nothing more than the same identical garden spade you bought last
year, just with a different shade of green paint (because they couldn't
get last years green color for the same price this year, and switched
paint suppliers).

Back to comp.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

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

csiph-web