I can't stand engineers who assume that they know better than those who use their products. Not just hiding the ability to easily disable javascript, but RE-ENABLING IT AGAIST THE USERS EXPRESSED DESIRE via an update - seriously, your head is so far up your ass you'd have to shit twice just to see daylight.
"Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
251–260 of 373 posts
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Removing options is NOT the way to go. If anything, there should be more options, until computers understand natural language. To be most intuitive to use, computers should converse like a human. Humans have LOTS of options, and everyone understands that. E.g. if I ask a human to make a sandwich, I can specify all the ingredients I want, how and when I want it, and so on. The ideal computer, too, would adjust its sof…
I think your sandwich analogy is spot on in the sense that I can also just ask a human "please make me a sandwich" without specifying anything, and (most) humans could proceed to do so without more details. There should be more options, and a good "default" mode for people who don't want to fiddle with them. To my knowledge this is why most wizards have basic configuration options and a "advanced" button to click for the detailed configuration, and I don't see why Firefox can't just have the same thing.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#253Look on the bright side. At least we'll never, ever have to hear about the Principle of Least Power again from Mozilla/HTML5 advocates lionising the "Open Web" against smartphone apps, Native Client or what have you.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#254I 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…
There is a reason to assume that it is not there, particularly if you're developing a U.S. government website, and that's for accessibility reasons.
Google Section 508 and you'll see what I mean. Go ahead and build your site to use javascript, but don't continue under the false pretense that everyone needs/can use javascript.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#255I commented on this elsewhere, but to all the people who assume that developers can just build websites and assume that JS is enabled, please Google "Section 508".
FWIW, I don't think we should avoid educating users. Pandering to the dumbest common denominator only makes dumb things in the long run.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#256The following rant is somewhat tangential but, as a front-end developer that takes pride in progressively enhancing websites I work on, I think this is a shame for a different reason. So many times when speaking to employers/product owners about progressive enhancement of JavaScript components, the answer I get back is along the lines of "we don't care about that" or "we don't have the time". Sometimes in conversatio…
Which is exactly why we added the disable JS button to Firefox developer tools options. It simply disables it for the current tab until the tab is closed.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#257Wow, how times change. The smart advice was to never use Javascript. (Years ago pg even wrote, " I would not even use Javascript, if I were you. Most of the Javascript I see on the Web isn't necessary, and much of it breaks." ) Javascript has gone from horribly flaky -> occasionally useful -> necessary -> mandatory.
You imply that javascript stopped being flaky. I find that it's often flakiest on sites where it's mandatory.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of the Web does not do graceful degradation to fully functional sites without JS. That ship has sailed, that battle has been lost. JavaScript is a required, not optional, part of a lot of the Web.
Strongly disagree. Lots of the web may not degrade gracefully, but then also lots of it does. Further, the notion of it as a lost battle is unfortunate because we're not discussing a binary choice between two opposing sides here. As an approach, progressive enhancement of JavaScript UIs enables developers to deliver an experience that degrades sanely in non-JS environments. However, I will concede that your opinion a…
There is something to be said about the expectation when js is on and off. A lot of sites will have a notion of javascript is off == old mobile phones or low level device, and will assume that when js is off most css will be too.
Simple sites won't see this as a problem, but for mildly complex sites, you'll have a matrix of "is js on ? off ? " "is css on ? off ?" "does it accept cookies?" "is this html5 thing available ?" "is there enough memory for this or that?" , and you'll add to the mix screen sizes and the availability of a keyboard or not, etc.
There's already so many moving parts, saying "this browser handles cookies, every newest features of css, html5 and everything. Except js won't run." is just a recipe for ugly user experiences.
Slightly OT, IMO blacklisting specific js (e.g facebook, twitter etc), or having browser giving an option to kill scripts that take too much time or too many resources should be healthier for the devs and the user than just turning js off on the whole site.
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you say "Advanced settings" dialogs mean poorly thought out UI? I think it's a very good way to tell novice users, "don't open this panel if you don't know what you are doing". And if they still do it and something wrong happens, they'd immediately know the reason.
User has trouble with software. User says that software is "too hard to use". A usability/interaction team are tasked with making the software "easier to use" and set off to find "confusing and infrequently used" features they can kill off. Obviously anything on the 'Advanced...' dialog makes an easy target.
Humm .... I don't believe that just the presence of an "Advanced" button somewhere in the settings makes a software hard to use. May be FF usability experts do. :)
Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, didn't know, I rarely use excel, but do know a lot of people who do a ton of VBA code to connect to database resources to create interactive spreadsheets.. and a lot of that is far from common, button-click functionality. And in any case, for those that want it, it's in about:config ... I doubt anyone who should be disabling JS would be looking around for it in a config frame, and not do a quick google sear…
While you may know a lot of people who do VBA code in Excel, that is actually far from the norm for the average corporate user. From my non-CS friends who have worked in both large and small companies, I have heard tons of horror stories of the insane spreadsheets that low-to-average users make using just the GUI functionality. Huge spreadsheets with formulas spanning tons of sheets to simulate what could be done in…
My dad takes great pride in complex VBA code. Unfortunately, this can backfire. A few years ago he was brought in to help manage a particular support system for a large telecoms company here in the UK, which involved a lot of Excel donkey work. He understandably figured out a way to automate about 50% of the work of the entire system.
This meant that he freed up plenty of time for the entire team he was on. Unfortunately, this meant that they now had surplus staff, and as the newest arrival, he was the first to let go.
Yeah, incredibly backwards internal politics, but I swear it's true.