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

Groups > comp.misc > #4935

Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea

Show all headers | View raw

Rich <rich@example.invalid> 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/
>> >
>> >    My fancy new website is broken due to a script blocking extension.
>> <snip>
>> >    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.
> 
>> 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 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.
> 
> 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.

Like mouse overs. Some sites seem to be completely infested with the
critters, you can barely move the mouse without something flashing in
your face. I'd prefer to just click on something if I want to view it.

Then there are animations and scrolling banners. I find it distracting
to try to read something when there's things moving on the screen.

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