This is my preferred use of js, providing additional functionality and usability improvements on top of things that already work perfectly well with js disabled. Users with js still get the "fuller" experience, but users who choose to disable js still have full access to the site.
But developers shouldn't have to implement extra functionality for the < 1% [citation needed] of people who browse without JS .
If it doesn't work without JS, is it going to work in a screen reader? Should developers have to implement extra functionality for the Nobody is forcing developers to give a damn about accessibility, but it's a bit sad that so many have thrown graceful degradation out the window.
Non-technical users do not even know what a browser is, much less anything about HTML or JavaScript.
What exactly is a non-technical user? I read threads like this all the time: someone talks about "non-technical users" or "your grandma" or "pointy-haired bosses" or the like, and then goes to great length to discuss, in detail, the capacities or cognitive styles or knowledge base of members of these hypothetical categories. It all seems like a bunch of arbitrary assumptions.
I don't know about anyone else's experience, but these assumptions are pretty dead-on in my own personal experience. Non-techies(my mom, or somebody who only uses home computers for email & turbo-tax and some super-locked-down PC at work) don't have a clue what/how it's doing what it does. The blue "E" on the desktop is the internet, sometimes it's even the whole computer when they say "My computer doesn't work". They most _definitely_ don't have a clue what HTML or javascript is, or what that blue "e" on their desktop is. That being said, not to come off as some arrogant know-it-all, I admit I know very little about how my car works. I just take to the dealer and do the suggested maintenance. I'm sure I'm paying more than I should somewhere but I don't care... however, I'm starting to think it's more dangerous not to know how a computer and the internet work than it is to not know how your car works.
The other thing Alex posted is firefox really gives you no indication of why the internet looks weird and is breaking left and right. So you can disable js or images or ssl and unless you're lucky enough to know a programmer or IT person really have no guide to undoing whatever happened.
replying to myself: one more way apple simply makes better software: safari offers a simple reset option that seems to reset all browser settings. Now, this doesn't help in the case of a user not understanding what went wrong, but I can tell someone over the phone "click on safari -> reset safari" far more easily than walking someone through deleting a firefox profile while saving bookmarks or reinstalling firefox an…
If "the internet" is suddenly breaking left and right after you've disabled certain features wouldn't you try re-enabling the features?
You give people way too much credit. Keep in mind most people still blatantly deny changing anything when something goes wrong for whatever reason. "I didn't even do anything, it just broke."
I remember a user flat out lying about what an error box said over the phone. I asked her to read it out, she gave be what was in her head, not on the screen. I asked her to read it word-by-word, she did the same. I asked her to read it out letter-by-letter ("I've never seen that error there before, I want to get it exactly right so I can ask the programmers...") and then she actually looked at what it said.
I can't remember the last time I wrote an application that didn't rely on Javascript for even parts of its basic functionality. I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS enabled and the average user definitely would never turn it off except in error, causing them to think the browser is broken. Every single common-use browser on the Internet supports Javascript, there is no reason to a…
Some mainstream sites will load js from 20 (or more) sources, just to show you an article. Crazy.
Every mainstream browser supports Flash, too - does that mean Flash is the way of the future?
I run with NoScript, and it makes the web a quieter, more peaceful place.
This is my preferred use of js, providing additional functionality and usability improvements on top of things that already work perfectly well with js disabled. Users with js still get the "fuller" experience, but users who choose to disable js still have full access to the site.
But developers shouldn't have to implement extra functionality for the < 1% [citation needed] of people who browse without JS .
That depends entirely on your site and audience.
Although some counter by saying that you shouldn't need to provide wheelchair ramps for the Sometimes it's not just about ROI.
> I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS enabled It's faster. Much faster. Every time I disable noscript to use some website (90% of the time it's video that doesn't work) I'm always astonished how much GARBAGE most website have. Totally useless stuff. Popup boxes, annoying underlining with mouse overs, certificate verifiers, bookmarks, social network promoters, chat boxes, and help…
But that stuff is all important for the website owner. Advertising for paying the bills, analytics tracking to work out who is using their site, chat/comments boxes for social interaction.
I don't look at advertising - certainly not advertising that pops up if I mouse over a word. (Are website a game now, where you have to carefully move your mouse to avoid the underlined words?)
I allow analytics.
And I am not interested in social interaction, because the comments are so intensely stupid you become dumber just by your computer loading them.
A few months ago, I switched to using w3m inside emacs as my primary browser. w3m is not capable of handling Javascript at all. And you know what, for 90% of the websites I visit, it doesn't matter. They function fine and look fine without Javascript. And if w3m could manage to make most websites look fine without Javascript, so could Firefox -- if its developers cared. As for non-technical users -- they're probably…
"As for non-technical users -- they're probably not going to be opening Firefox's Preferences dialog in the first place. And if they do, they probably aren't going to start randomly checking and unchecking stuff to see what it does."
You would be surprised what non-geeks tend to do when they have no clue what to do.
I supppose too many people accidentally disabled Javascript in recent months while trying to disable Java. As long as there's an about:config option that does the same thing, I don't think it's a bad move to remove that option from view. I will, however, miss the "Advanced" button next to the "Enable JavaScript" checkbox (if that button is going to go away, too, which the article isn't clear about). I use those Advan…
I can confirm the "Advanced" button is gone. At least for the moment, the dom.disable_window_move_resize and dom.event.contextmenu.enabled preferences still exist in about:config, though.
This is what will be the major issue for me. I toggle the right click override option on and off on a very regular basis.
The other thing Alex posted is firefox really gives you no indication of why the internet looks weird and is breaking left and right. So you can disable js or images or ssl and unless you're lucky enough to know a programmer or IT person really have no guide to undoing whatever happened.
If "the internet" is suddenly breaking left and right after you've disabled certain features wouldn't you try re-enabling the features?
Not if you disabled it while fiddling with a bunch of firefox options late at night, and then didn't notice anything broken until the next morning.
Not if someone borrowing your computer for 5 minutes disables it.