There are more people who disable JS unintentionally than those who do it intentionally.
This is a good move. Option still exists in about:config.
"Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
151–160 of 373 posts
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#152Earlier 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…
> 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? Of course not. Mozilla's agenda is determined by its main sponsor, Google, which has a vital interest for JS to be enabled. Any spin on this being somehow "for the user" is bullshit.
Apparently, the agenda of Google's own browser team isn't determined by Google, since they haven't removed this option.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try disabling cookies. This exactly describes the effect, except that it's not mysterious once you're used to it. If something doesn't work, I open it in Chrome (where I have cookies enabled), and it works. In many cases, I suppose the developer doesn't know about the cookie dependency (because of a framework or some other dependency). In other cases, I guess they don't care. Rarely does the page actually tell you th…
Thanks to recent legislation in Poland webpages should inform user if they are using cookies. Result? Web littered with annoying popups that everybody closes without reading.
Ah, is that why I've been seeing more and more of those notices lately?
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, blame the 'checkboxes' and not your own failure to handle disabled js gracefully. I'd be mad about this, except I haven't used firefox in years. One less reason to go back I guess.
You can blame the web at large for moving in a direction that assumes JS is enabled, but that doesn't make the UX better.
One thing that surprised me a lot recently, is I started a rewrite of my personal website using Bootstrap as a base, where the old one used jQueryUI... iirc, I included the kitchen sink in the old version.. however, the new one came in a bit heavier on the download/overhead... even with a better min/merge plan.
I can say the new version I am working on looks better, and is actually usable on a phone, just the same, I am not sure I'd like to see the UX on a bandwidth constrained mobile connection.. it's still well under 1MB total, but it seems that we should be working towards being under 100K for an initial load, and given all the targets for different browsers, and work arounds, and libraries, tools etc.. I just don't know where we are going.
We have more target browsers and size constraints than ever, and it's more complicated than ever. I don't miss the V4 browser wars (IE4/NN4) but it seems that targeting a 700px wide or 960px wide site was way easier than the rules today, mobile first or not.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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".
So well thought out interface design is ignoring subsets of users and unifying everyone to one common set of behavior. Imagine if Excel employed this philosophy. It wouldn't be useful to anyone.
I wasn't aware I could set a field to SUM(..) etc from the gui... Most of the features in Excel are a bit under the covers.. and far more so than about:config... maybe the "advanced settings" tab should be a button that just takes you to about:config with a warning?
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#156One aspect of this that I haven't heard people get into very much: the idea that a lot of people have, including (probably) most developers at Mozilla and many web developers such as myself, is for the web platform to be a ubiquitous way to deploy applications. The idea is that JavaScript allows a relatively safe way to do that in a sandboxed environment (the browser) that is available on almost every computer. The d…
I still completely disagree making the web an application platform. Because of the absurd HTML5 cult, many websites are obtaining unpredictable and inconsistent behavior. The difficulty of explaining it to my old parents is increasing day by day. Moreover, browsers are getting fatter unlimitedly and only a few vendors can survive and develop them. It gives browser vendors special privileges. As we are experiencing now, no one can stop this "Disable JavaScript" removing. How can people say this is "open" movement? The good old web is dying.
The web should be words and documents first (I think this page is worth reading http://justinjackson.ca/words.html). It's too late to say but if you want a sandboxed application platform, develop it out of the web. I still believe the plug-in was not a that bad idea, not the best idea though. At least you can disable it anytime and you have freedom of choice.
I suspect that the back button will be eliminated next. Because it collapses most web applications and "user experience".
If the web want to become a perfect application platform, all virtue of the web will be lost.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frankly, I don't notify users in any way of a dependency on cookies or JavaScript. If you go disabling features fundamental to the functionality of the web, I expect that you know what you're doing and don't, in fact, expect most of the web to work. The web apps I build simply aren't going to function if you disable JavaScript or cookies.
That is a terribly user-unfriendly design decision because it does not distinguish between failure modes. Maybe your site is broken because I am running noscript or maybe it broken because it is mis-configured or recently hacked or my ISP's proxy is black-holing things or a dozen other things that could go wrong. The point is that it is relatively trivial for the developer to add automated checks for per-requisites a…
[body]
[noscript]This site requires cookies and javascript to function properly[/noscript]
...
[/body]
Problem solved.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#158This is unnecessary panic/upset.
It's only being removed from the UI
The backend ability is still there.
Extensions like no-script and yes-script (I prefer) will still function.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#159Earlier 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…
"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".
I'm pretty sure that Disable Javascript is not something asked ONCE.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#160Earlier 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…
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…
Well, an extra phrase might be added in the menu where 'Disable Javascript' appears - '(Note: Javascript is not same as Java)'.
If users don't know the difference between Diesel and Gasoline, better option is to educate them in context (e.g. handle of fuel pump) rather than closing down all Diesel pumps.