As long as you can still disable JS via about:config or NoScript, this is hardly worrisome.
"Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
121–130 of 373 posts
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#122A 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...
You clearly haven't worked with the same non-technical users I have. It took ages to figure out that "use TLS" getting unchecked was the reason our site wouldn't load for one particular visitor.
I wholeheartedly support removing all of these check boxes.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
JS doesn't make the web less accessible. You can choose to make your web apps using JS just as accessible as plain-old HTML, sometimes more so.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#124I 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.
How often do Firefox retire settings in about:config? There are still a bunch of old old settings in there, that you can still change.
Want your Firefox to behave like a 1990s browser with one window per website? You can configure that.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is your take on w3m vs elinks?
I really haven't used it much, except as my default external HTML->Text converter (via wget + HTML::FormatText::Elinks), of which it does a good job. Unfortunately, its main weakness is that (as far as I know) it's not integrated in to emacs as w3m is. If it was, I'd probably look to it as a serious contender. But since it's not, I'm afraid I'm stuck with w3m -- for better or for worse. (Right now, it's for better, a…
Hmm, gotcha. I like elinks for it's pretty solid mouse/256color support in in terminal emulators but I haven't used it "from" other programs like emacs (just tmux). In that capacity, elinks is my primary browser for reading documentation (since I usually associate documentation with particular tmux sessions and leave it open for weeks or months on end).
w3m has image support in some terminals though, which fascinates me. I feel like I should probably investigate that some more.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#126Here's a very relevant blog post by Alex Limi of Mozilla: http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ Most sites these days that aren’t just displaying content will fail in interesting & mysterious ways if you don’t have JavaScript enabled. For the general population, Firefox will appear broken. And yes, I know that some people have reasons (privacy, web development) to turn off JavaScript. There are many add-ons that can…
Is there any empirical evidence that suggests that people accidentally disabling JavaScript and then being confused as to why websites don't look right is a significant problem? The author of that article says: "Is it really worth having a preference panel that benefits fewer than 2% of users overall? — obvious spoiler alert: The answer is no." The answer is yes . If 2% of users have a purpose for it, perhaps it woul…
I don't know of any empirical evidence, but the story normally goes: There is a new Java exploit, and recommendations to remove/disable Java hit the wild. Then while people try to find out how to disable "Java" Find "Disable Javascript" and assume it's related. Perhaps this would be solved by renaming it "Disable Ecmascript" however.
I really have no idea how common this is, but have seen it once, from a user that's technically savy enough to be diging in options and worried about security, but not savy enough to know the difference between Java and Javascript.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#127Here's a very relevant blog post by Alex Limi of Mozilla: http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ Most sites these days that aren’t just displaying content will fail in interesting & mysterious ways if you don’t have JavaScript enabled. For the general population, Firefox will appear broken. And yes, I know that some people have reasons (privacy, web development) to turn off JavaScript. There are many add-ons that can…
Is there any empirical evidence that suggests that people accidentally disabling JavaScript and then being confused as to why websites don't look right is a significant problem? The author of that article says: "Is it really worth having a preference panel that benefits fewer than 2% of users overall? — obvious spoiler alert: The answer is no." The answer is yes . If 2% of users have a purpose for it, perhaps it woul…
"Advanced settings" dialogs tend to indicate poorly-thought-out interface design.
Rather than demonstrating careful attention to what features are useful and important enough to ship, they become dumping grounds for "something someone asked for once".
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any empirical evidence that suggests that people accidentally disabling JavaScript and then being confused as to why websites don't look right is a significant problem? The author of that article says: "Is it really worth having a preference panel that benefits fewer than 2% of users overall? — obvious spoiler alert: The answer is no." The answer is yes . If 2% of users have a purpose for it, perhaps it woul…
> If there really is a problem, it may be worthwhile to move it to an "advanced settings" panel, but removing it entirely is a terrible idea. Is this not the equivalent of 'about:config'? In reality it is the advanced settings panel, just without the pretty dialog to go with it.
But about:config voids my warranty.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 am pretty sure putting "disable js" option into advanced tab would be enough.
There are plenty options that can bug your browser or leave you unable to surf, why remove this particular one?
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there really is a problem, it may be worthwhile to move it to an "advanced settings" panel, but removing it entirely is a terrible idea. Is this not the equivalent of 'about:config'? In reality it is the advanced settings panel, just without the pretty dialog to go with it.
But about:config voids my warranty.
Then ask for a refund.