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

281–290 of 373 posts

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#281

Post by andrewaylett »

jejones3141 wrote: post #225
legulere wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But you don't need to disable JS altogether to prevent that, only disable replacing context menus. Unfortunately for that argument, updating to FF23 removes all of the 'advanced' JS options, not just the checkbox to disable it altogether.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#282

Post by andrewaylett »

steve-howard wrote: post #79
x0x0 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

replying to myself: one more way apple simply makes better software: safari offers a simple reset option that seems to reset all browser settings. Now, this doesn't help in the case of a user not understanding what went wrong, but I can tell someone over the phone "click on safari -> reset safari" far more easily than walking someone through deleting a firefox profile while saving bookmarks or reinstalling firefox an…

In firefox, go to "about:support", "reset firefox." Probably not exactly the same (and it's not exposed as easily) but it's there.

'about:support' is also accessible via Help->Troubleshooting Information.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#283

Post by jrochkind1 »

netc wrote: post #160
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…

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.

If people don't know the difference between diesel and gasoline, is a note that says "Note: Diesel is not the same as Gasoline" going to help? Doubt it.

The assertion is that 'configuration creep' is overwhelming for the unsophisticated user in the first place, adding even more notes and explanations to all the configuration options is not going to help.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#284

Post by PommeDeTerre »

mhaymo wrote: post #274
PommeDeTerre wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

- disabling javascript via about:config is no harder than through the settings if you know about it - 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 di…

I'm all for change that improves usability, efficiency, and performance, for instance. I'm not for changes that obviously inhibit such things, like the changes that Mozilla has made recently.

about:config is not as convenient to use as a checkbox in the preferences dialog. If what you're suggesting were actually true, then there'd be no need for a preferences dialog at all, and all users would configure Firefox using about:config. But we both know that isn't true. It is not convenient to remember the name of a specific about:config option, especially when the names change periodically. Even filtering by part of the option name isn't convenient, as that requires remembering Mozilla's terminology, and using a general term like "javascript" still leaves many options to sift through manually.

As for the status bar, the URL popup shown when hovering over links is much less usable than the status bar. It is harder to quickly focus on, for instance. Having to remember yet another obscure keyboard shortcut for functionality that should be enable by default, like the addon bar, does not promote usability, as well.

The menu bar is not a "waste of space" because it more than pays back its cost by making a huge amount of commonly-used functionality very easily accessible. It is especially valuable because of the cross-application conventions it embodies, making it take even less effort to perform common tasks.

We shouldn't have to manually enable core functionality like menus or the status bar, for example. Such functionality should already be enabled by default when Firefox is first installed. Anyone who doesn't like the menu bar or the status bar should have the option to disable them, of course. But they should not have been disabled by default, or even removed completely.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#285

Post by maxhowell »

just2n wrote: post #169
gkoberger wrote: post #22

Here's a very relevant blog post by Alex Limi of Mozilla: http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ Most sites these days that aren’t just displaying content will fail in interesting & mysterious ways if you don’t have JavaScript enabled. For the general population, Firefox will appear broken. And yes, I know that some people have reasons (privacy, web development) to turn off JavaScript. There are many add-ons that can…

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…

Sorry to be blunt, but it's clear you have never had to design or support a user-facing product. Anyone who has done either of these things will disagree with your base assumptions, ie. that users care about understanding their software, that they read warning texts, and that they don't mindlessly flip switches when trying to achieve unrelated goals.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#286

Post by sp332 »

lmm wrote: post #214
tomphoolery wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any empirical evidence that the use of AdBlock + Ghostery or WOT or whatever privacy addons you're already using are any less secure than disabling JavaScript outright? Disabling JavaScript has a few MAJOR disadvantages to proper web usage: 1. As the blog post has said, many web sites will fail in mysterious and unexpected ways. Some web apps may be rendered completely useless. In fact, you might as well jus…

Ghostery has recently been found to be selling user data. ISTR there was a similar incident with AdBlock? I don't want to have to trust some random extension author to have got these things right.

AdBlock Plus started allowing some advertising they deemed "non-intrusive". This was a default setting and easily toggled in the settings, but there was still a big backlash.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#287

Post by tessellated »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #59

Okay, since Opera seems to have gone the way of the dodo: Is there a browser for power users? I mean, good luck to Firefox and Chrome, but considering I rarely use flashy websites, I really would rather use something that only works with half the sites, but has the experimentation and hunger for ideas for the sake of ideas more than for the sake of market share these so sorely lack.

Have a look at luakit. It's basically the Webkit engine and everything else scripted in Lua.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#289

Post by Gormo »

ubernostrum wrote: post #127
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…

"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".

> they become dumping grounds for "something someone asked for once".

Right. That's what they should be.

Software exists to provide utility for users, not to instantiate designers' aesthetic visions.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#290

Post by lmm »

bad_user wrote: post #236
lmm wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very arbitrary line to draw. Some "alternative browsers" exist that wrap the IE rendering engine in a different UI (and some of those include their own firebug-like functionality), does that mean IE is more customizable than firefox (which, after all, forces you to use GTK for your UI)?

Wrapping the IE rendering engine in a different UI is a different browser, but further than that, you can also embed Gekko, Firefox's rendering engine in a custom UI. Examples of browsers that embedded Gekko: Camino (a Firefox fork for OS X that happened in a time when Firefox wasn't as polished for OS X), Flock and K-Meleon. Google's Picassa for Linux was also using Gekko. Also, Firefox's UI toolkit is not GTK, but…

>Wrapping the IE rendering engine in a different UI is a different browser, but further than that, you can also embed Gekko, Firefox's rendering engine in a custom UI. >Examples of browsers that embedded Gekko: Camino (a Firefox fork for OS X that happened in a time when Firefox wasn't as polished for OS X), Flock and K-Meleon. Google's Picassa for Linux was also using Gekko.

True, but only goes to show my point - if firefox's extension mechanism made it so super-customizable, surely there would be no need for such browsers?

>Firefox's UI toolkit is not GTK, but rather XUL+XPCOM

Fair enough, but the point stands; when writing extensions you're restricted to using the XUL toolkit. Contrast with e.g. activex-based add-ons in Internet Explorer, where AIUI you get the standard windows API and can thus use any toolkit you like.

>Imagine a browser who's every facet and functionality is customizable by HTML5/Javascript extensions that you can install with one click.

I'm happy to believe that Firefox is the browser that's easiest to customize in HTML5/Javascript, I just think that's a very arbitrary line to draw. IE addons can be any language you like (because again they're just using the standard APIs) and can be installed with one click.

There are plenty of good things about firefox, but I don't think you can say it's more or less customizable than the alternatives without defining customizability in a very arbitrary way. All browsers have a succession of methods of customization, from simple userjs to custom extension formats to embedding the engine in a new executable, with the power and complexity increasing at each step. That firefox's "extensions" lie at a bit more powerful and complex point along the line than chrome's is not the basis for this blanket claim of greater customizability.

Post reply on HN