271–280 of 373 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that would be easy to fix using only HTML, if the refresh used an anchor tag to your comment.
But would always require a complete page reload. Not that most web apps wouldn't implement it that way to begin with anyway, but this would be the only choice with a HTML-only site.
So? A complete HN page is smaller than JQuery.
One 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 no…
Web has always been about managing documents in one way or the other. Now those documents are interactive and interesting to watch and listen.
I mean, if my old chem book had cool animations I could tinker with I'd probably be having fun with it right now. I don't understand the outcry for GOW. It's still around and you can still make those sites, but they are usually hard to read (no fancy column layout to make it easy on the eyes) and you have to be a great writer to really engage the audience.
Going back to GOW won't make bad writters instantly better. No more than returning to 8-bit graphic won't instantly make all games better.
This 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.
A lot of the anger in this case is because Mozilla is once again removing useful functionality from Firefox for very nebulous reasons. Even if such functionality can be restored by using about:config, or by installing extensions, it becomes a hassle. They did this with the menu bar, and it hurt Firefox's usability. Now many of us have to waste time and effort reconfiguring it to make the menu bar reappear every time…
- How does removing the status bar hurt usability? You still see links when you hover over them, and the add-on bar can be toggled instantly with Ctrl+/
- Always displaying the menu bar by default is a waste of space, it can still easily be accessed with Alt or configured to always display.
Honestly you seem to just dislike change, and I'd advise you to simply turn off automatic updates. The rest of us are happy for improvements to be made.
Why is taking away features "in" now?
Software needs to empower the user. Writing arbitrary limitations in to code to make certain functionality harder to achieve is a seriously repulsive attitude for developers to have. The current trend in removing features from software seems like a great way to have a dire shortage of engineers in 50 years time. The attitude that "software is a magic and untouchable black box, you can only use it to do the specific t…
I like this! The option is still there for power users (who most likely _know_ why they want to disable Javascript) and normal users can't accidentally disable it. Win-win!
Here's the bug where the option was removed: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851702 Limi's blog post "Checkboxes that kill your product" is cited in the bug as a good explanation of the motivation behind this: http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ The option has been added to the DevTools for developers who find it useful: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=864249 And of course addons like NoSc…
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.
How are we meant to handle AJAX requests that fetch data to display on the web page that allows users to achieve the goal of their visit? Without JS enabled, that part of the page will be blank, and many modern, rich content-heavy sites now pull data from different places on the fly, it's just how it is.
Is your idea of gracefully handling this situation putting a noscript tag there saying "please enable JS"? If so, what exactly is your problem with removing the option which we only ask users to re-enable anyway?
As many others have pointed out, you can still disable JS if you really need to. It's average non-technical users who don't require that option.
Earlier 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…
"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 c…
Earlier 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…
"These days, every additional setting the application has is a liability." If we follow this thinking too far, we end up with a closed console like device, or Gnome 4 as parodied last April [1]. Surely there is a case for progressive revealing/enabling of advanced functions? In the UK, the Blackberry phones are very popular with teenagers because of BBM. This desire to access BBM even extends to students carrying two…
The downside of progressive functions in the base install is that the core Firefox team would have to support all the functions.