Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

smashingmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 180 posts

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#161

Post by mattmanser »

NoGravitas wrote: post #142
mattmanser wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more than that, they could have fixed html to support snippets without needing a full page reload. They haven't and now we're in this javascript SPA mess.

This, so much. There's a reasonable set of common JS usage patterns out there that really ought to be replaced with declarative statements in HTML and supported by browsers, so that doing things like dynamic forms, drag-and-drop areas, page transitions without reload, notification badges, etc. would not have to require running arbitrary code. Intercooler.js provides a preview of what this could be like, but, of cours…

MS actually did somethinng like this in IE5/6 in VB, but it never caught on. You could write a sort of reusable code snippet. I can't remember for the life of me what they were called though.

Probably had the word "Active" in it. Active control or something like that.

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#162

Post by andrei_says_ »

ergothus wrote: post #150
romaniv wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is spending the time and resources on creating a non-JS site worth it Comments like these make me wonder if any of the people saying PE is hard ever tried it at all. The whole point of progressive enhancement is that you don't create a separate non-JS website.

I do not understand your comment. Progressive Enhancement (and I've done it) has a lot going for it, but "easier" or "as easy" isn't the case. Thus time and resources are spent to get the same functionality. Example: I make a form. It works without JS, so my server has to generate the form, handle the request where the form is submitted, and generate the result HTML. If I'm practicing good separation of concerns, the…

I’ve always wondered why anyone would use JS for form submission? One JavaScript error in one remote library and customers are now unable to contact you, and The only signal you get for the failure is your empty inbox.

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#163

Post by [deleted] »

80386 wrote: post #111
ibdf wrote: post #39

Oh my lord, this article is non-sense. Had you gone to a website and had not been able to read anything I would say... good point. But you went to a Wordpress admin to prove your point. Lord have mercy... you're really going to hate your experience once WP switches to a JS based editor. Quick, let's try using Facebook and other apps built on JS frameworks and complain about the functionality not working. Let's try se…

I know a guy who built a single-page web app for a blog. Really. It takes a few seconds to load the post titles, it'll make your computer grind to a halt if you have more than two tabs of it open, it took months to write, and it doesn't do anything you couldn't do with plain HTML and some AJAX request handlers... but Brawndo has electrolytes! I bet it looks pretty good on his resume.

[deleted]

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#164

Post by krapp »

zeveb wrote: post #134
jrvidal wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your fears are a bit misguided. WebAssembly runs within the same sandbox as JavaScript code. I don't see how this would constitute a _higher_ security risk than browsers as they stand today.

WebAssembly isn't a higher risk than JavaScript — what's a higher risk is increasing the use of JavaScript and/or WebAssembly. I fear that in the not-too-distant future web pages will simply be blobs of WebAssembly which paint UIs within a browser, and general-purpose computers will have become TV terminals — but TV terminals which allow the modern equivalents of networks & newspapers to steal one's private informati…

>I fear that in the not-too-distant future web pages will simply be blobs of WebAssembly which paint UIs within a browser,

Some will, probably, but there's no reason all web pages will go that way. "App" type sites almost certainly, maybe streaming services, but the benefit just isn't worth the cost for most sites.

It didn't happen with Java, it didn't happen with Flash, it didn't happen with Silverlight, it didn't even happen with javascript even though it's possible to publish an entire web UI as an obfuscated "javascript blob" that writes on a canvas. It hasn't happened now that most people surf the web on walled garden Android phones, arguably the antithesis of a "general purpose computer" and closer to the "TV terminal" you described. Why is Webassembly the straw that will break the web's back?

If almost no one actually wants to build the dystopian scenario you're afraid of, and doing so would probably be impossible, why be afraid of it?

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#165

Post by perl4ever »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #130
Rapzid wrote: post #107

Somebody should create a list of JS free sites. They can sell it at Whole Foods in the "medicine" aisle. You guys know what I'm talking about; "JS Free -All Natural!". I think we've about reached the point of ideology on this. If you are considering arguing with the other side your probably better off arguing evolution with a creationist, or facts with the GOP.

What a tremendously rude comment. I can't believe you need so many hundreds of karma points to downvote what is clearly a non-contribution.

Well, I'm not sure if it was meant to be helpful, but I would like a "list", or better yet, a search engine, that excludes all sites with javascript. If there is no such widely used search engine, then sites without scripting can't thrive.

I've never been an ideological seeker of "organic, all natural" type foods, because the criteria tend to seem arbitrary and unscientific, but I've come to see the label as useful because the other stuff is increasingly adulterated with garbage I don't want.

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#166

Post by krapp »

perl4ever wrote: post #165
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a tremendously rude comment. I can't believe you need so many hundreds of karma points to downvote what is clearly a non-contribution.

Well, I'm not sure if it was meant to be helpful, but I would like a "list", or better yet, a search engine, that excludes all sites with javascript. If there is no such widely used search engine, then sites without scripting can't thrive. I've never been an ideological seeker of "organic, all natural" type foods, because the criteria tend to seem arbitrary and unscientific, but I've come to see the label as useful b…

>If there is no such widely used search engine, then sites without scripting can't thrive.

Such a search engine would never be widely used, because there's no widespread desire to limit search results only to sites which don't use javascript.

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#167

Post by samirillian »

majewsky wrote: post #120
samirillian wrote: post #118

Honestly, I don't see the wordpress backend as a relevant test case. Whoever else you might be catering to, it's fair to assume that someone building a website would have JavaScript enabled while developing.

90+% of the people using Wordpress backends do not build websites. They just author content.

Content authors either

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#168

Post by shabbyrobe »

jakecopp wrote: post #35
shabbyrobe wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're serious about giving this a whirl, uMatrix is even better for fine-grained control. I disable everything except first-party images and CSS by default and it's like a whole new internet. There's a bit of a dance you have to get used to when things don't work, but I've got it into muscle memory now so I don't even think about it. I tend to click around in there enabling the first few obvious things for about…

How does uMatrix compare to uBlock Origin with its matrix enabled through advanced mode? I can't tell much difference but would be willing to jump ship. uBlock Origin doesn't have CSS or image control per domain but it's the JS I worry about!

I've just realised I wasn't very clear about the way they complement each other - uMatrix is a lot more more configurable and a lot more fine-grained, but at the cost of taking some time to master. I believe the investment of time was worth it. I use uBlock for set-and-forget coarse control and for the excellent filter lists, then use uMatrix for customisations.

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#170

Post by cptskippy »

Grumbledour wrote: post #62
cptskippy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember when we used the term "Graceful Degradation". It really isn't that hard to design a functional HTML site and then layer Javascript and AJAX over top of it to enhance the experience. There are very few sites that actually need to be using Frameworks like Angular and React. Sometimes I wonder if most developers would even be able to design a functional site using only HTML. It seems like most don't know the…

However, its also important to mention, that with react and careful planing, a no-js version is basically included for free. One might debate if a page really needs hundreds of kb of js to function, but then again, this is not much different than the classical progressive enhancement site with jquery etc. layered on and reacts server rendering can make to page easily available and working when js is disabled.

> However, its also important to mention, that with react and careful planing, a no-js version is basically included for free.

Careful planning is required of all frameworks to make a JS free version. I wouldn't say it's a feature of React or that it's free.

> One might debate if a page really needs hundreds of kb of js to function, but then again, this is not much different than the classical progressive enhancement site with jquery

JQuery was a crutch that wasn't strictly necessary and with modern browsers you can largely do without it and write pure JavaScript. Assuming you know how, which I would wager most developers don't.

Post reply on HN