Live data from Hacker News

JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

security.googleblog.com

31–40 of 529 posts

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#31

This seems reasonable to me. JavaScript is being used everywhere and most people are okay with it. As a business decision I don’t see why Google would support such a small edge case. That being said, if they feel like explaing why they should maybe try a little harder. I assume most people with JavaScript turned off might appreciate more details so they can decide how to respond to the requirement. Then again, their…

99.9% of users are okay with JavaScript.

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#34
post #32

I'm getting tired of Google dictating how the web should work. That's the job of standards bodies. Google is increasingly taking the place of overbearing overlord that Microsoft embodied in the 90's and early 2000's.

Google is dictating how signing into their account system on their properties works, not login forms for _every single site_.

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#35
post #9

This is coming right after the reCAPTCHA v3 announcement https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18331159 Sorry, you don't have enough Google Points to browse the web. Please enable JavaScript and install Google Chrome.

Recent new version of Google Mail flat out doesn't work to any usable standard in Firefox. Ten seconds to open a new 'compose mail' window. A context menu does a multi-second HTTP fetch before showing. The previous version worked great.

Either the dev team has just given up on quality or they're intentionally goading me into installing Chrome. I'm not going to play that game -- at this point Thunderbird works better.

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#36

I'm genuinely curious who actually browses the web in 2018 with JS disabled, though. Wouldn't 99.9999% of the web basically break? Like, if you do, do you only stick to a few basic sites, or?

I browse with JavaScript disabled (NoScript) with a few sites that I care about whitelisted. Most web sites work fine although their layout is sometimes not what the web designer intended. Some sites don't work at all... for those sites I generally hit the "back" button. When I enable JS to view "JS required" sites, I usually hit the "back" button before it finishes loading anyway so why bother.

NoScript makes a big difference with my laptop and a HUGE difference with my phone.

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#37

To keep your account secure, turn on Javascript?? If anything is making your web browsing less secure, it's JS. I don't particularly care that Google isn't letting you sign in without JS, but the message is just plain wrong..

Passwords can be hashed directly client-side with javascript, which is way more secure than sending them clear on the wire, so i dont disagree with Google's stance here and dont understand the hate

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#38
post #34
post #32

I'm getting tired of Google dictating how the web should work. That's the job of standards bodies. Google is increasingly taking the place of overbearing overlord that Microsoft embodied in the 90's and early 2000's.

Google is dictating how signing into their account system on their properties works, not login forms for _every single site_.

You're right. My comment is out of place in this particular instance. But there are plenty of other examples where Google does have too much power and influence.

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#40
post #37

To keep your account secure, turn on Javascript?? If anything is making your web browsing less secure, it's JS. I don't particularly care that Google isn't letting you sign in without JS, but the message is just plain wrong..

Passwords can be hashed directly client-side with javascript, which is way more secure than sending them clear on the wire, so i dont disagree with Google's stance here and dont understand the hate

Who is sending passwords in cleartext on the wire?
Post reply on HN