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

"Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

bugzilla.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 373 posts

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#221

Post by keithpeter »

jlgreco wrote: post #125
gnosis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"w3m has image support in some terminals though, which fascinates me. I feel like I should probably investigate that some more."

xterm http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20120402

I installed the w3m-img package on Ubuntu 1304, running it in xterm allows image viewing inline.

Irony: The Web page I linked to above has screen shots showing step by step how to install and run w3m. The Web page design requires javascript to display the screen shots! I wonder why web page designers do this?

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#222

Post by roel_v »

zimpenfish wrote: post #199
nightski wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That depends how large the subset is. If it's 2% or lower, then yes. Hell, I might even go as high as 10% depending on what the particular bit of behaviour is.

Do you think 2% of Excel users (or 10%) use Pivot tables? Do you think Excel would be the massively powerful tool it is today without that?

Same for scatter plot, import csv files delimited with % marks, and the ipmt() function?

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#223

Post by lmm »

nhamann wrote: post #14
CyberDroiD wrote: post #7

Javascript is not required to read articles on the web. It's optional. That's why "Reader" mode is so handy, just show me the article so I can read it. Sometimes I don't like waiting for my browser to struggle with poorly written JS. It sounds like a classic noobie mistake... "Why are users able to turn off Javascript?" "No idea." "Remove the feature!" If anyone says Javascript is not optional, they are trying to sel…

It depends on the type of article. I write a lot of blog posts about math. The most convenient way to do this is using Mathjax. If browsers had native support for mathematical notation then I would be inclined to agree with you, but this is not currently the case.

Isn't that what MathML is meant to do? Browser support is incomplete, but it sounds like a perfect use case for a javascript polyfill, so you could make pages that would work with either native browser support or javascript.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#224

Post by perlgeek »

vlasta2 wrote: post #203
just2n wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to say that this article is actually quite terrible, as is the opinion that any option that might ever be confusing to a user is an option that shouldn't ship with the product. The thesis of the article is: "Well, we have met the enemy, and he is us.* In the currently shipping version, Firefox ships with many options that will render the browser unusable to most people, right in the main settings ui." The solu…

This was true 10 years ago. These days, every additional setting the application has is a liability. There is a growing group of people, who are scared to have conversation with their browser and make any informed decisions. They ignore such messages. Other people will change any setting they can find and then forget about it. Then they will be surprised and angry at the application that it is not working. My experie…

> There is a growing group of people, who are scared to have conversation with their browser and make any informed decisions.

Why would scared people even open the settings dialog?

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#225

Post by jejones3141 »

legulere wrote: post #171
Gormo wrote: post #91

Earlier 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…

Implementation isn't the only cost of features. You need to test them so they don't break. Features can be a burden for the codebase and removal can lead to many edge cases becoming unnecessary. A magnitude of features can overwhelm users, especially occasional users. They steal attention from other features that you may find more important. And the most important point here: This feature really is broken as of today…

There are some web sites that use a Javascript to prevent one from right clicking on images to save them; disabling Javascript is a workaround for that. I wouldn't be surprised if that is in common use.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#226

Post by LaGrange »

Digit-Al wrote: post #188
tracker1 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's the case for all websites with a presence in or targeting eu countries.

Yes, that is correct. It is an EU law. It is an absolutely horrible, ill thought out law, but it is a law, so we all have to comply :-(

Actually, it's possible to implement in it an unobtrusive way that makes users feel more comfortable. The huge popups usually comes from the same websites that do popover ads (that commonly end up invisible and blocking scrolling with adblock) and auto-play videos.

Most of the time it's a small bar on the top or bottom of the screen. Stop whining.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#227

Post by millstone »

vlasta2 wrote: post #203
just2n wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to say that this article is actually quite terrible, as is the opinion that any option that might ever be confusing to a user is an option that shouldn't ship with the product. The thesis of the article is: "Well, we have met the enemy, and he is us.* In the currently shipping version, Firefox ships with many options that will render the browser unusable to most people, right in the main settings ui." The solu…

This was true 10 years ago. These days, every additional setting the application has is a liability. There is a growing group of people, who are scared to have conversation with their browser and make any informed decisions. They ignore such messages. Other people will change any setting they can find and then forget about it. Then they will be surprised and angry at the application that it is not working. My experie…

"Do you want to disable JavaScript?" is a stupid question, as you say. "Do you want your browser to tell Google, Facebook, Twitter, Omniture, DoubleClick, and six other companies you have never heard of, that you visited this site?" is not a dumb question. Given that option, 98% of users would say "hell no."

You are absolutely right that configurability is a sign of laziness, the opposite of hard work. But removing configurability is _not_ the sign of hard work. Hard work means addressing the interests of all parties, and Mozilla did not do that.

Why do those 2% of users disable JavaScript? It's in reaction to how JavaScript is used: it enables popups, enables distracting advertisements, lets all sorts of companies track me, makes sites load more slowly, etc. For this 2%, these uses are so odious as to outweigh the beneficial uses of JavaScript. So the hard work would be finding a way to distinguish between the user-friendly and user-hostile uses of JavaScript, and just disable the user-hostile ones, so that the interests of both classes of users would be satisfied.

This would not be new: Firefox's popup blocker is enabled by default, which demonstrates that JavaScript is already disabled for a particular use case, because it proved to be annoying to users. Why not take that a step further? If Mozilla wants to force JavaScript on, they should also address the reasons why that 2% of users go out of their way to disable it today. If those 2% say "I used to disable JavaScript, but now I don't have to" then Mozilla will have done their job.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#228

Post by [deleted] »

skriticos2 wrote: post #200
just2n wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to say that this article is actually quite terrible, as is the opinion that any option that might ever be confusing to a user is an option that shouldn't ship with the product. The thesis of the article is: "Well, we have met the enemy, and he is us.* In the currently shipping version, Firefox ships with many options that will render the browser unusable to most people, right in the main settings ui." The solu…

Why not just put it in the about:config page for FF? Casual users are unlikely to accidentially access this page as there is no GUI navigation to it. Though most casual users I know avoid GUI configuration all the same, so I don't really see the issue here.

[deleted]

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#229

Post by tempestn »

simonbrown wrote: post #210
Arelius wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Or make the option to disable Java accessible from there.

You want to add an option to disable a particular browser plugin in the core browser options? That doesn't seem like a good idea.
Post reply on HN