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

301–310 of 373 posts

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#301

Post by dthunt »

nollidge wrote: post #297
millstone wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Disabling Javascript for privacy reasons is like blowing off your leg to prevent tennis elbow: it's overkill, and it's rather ineffective at best.

It's ineffective in the sense that it doesn't stop all of the evil. It IS effective in the sense that running no javascript really limits the amount of information people can learn about your system. Like, why should a website be able to learn about the size of my screen, the complete enumeration of all of my plugins and fonts, etc?

As far as blowing off your leg, sometimes you just really hate tennis elbow, you know?

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#302

Post by dthunt »

exodust wrote: post #278
mullingitover wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "failure to handle disabled js gracefully." 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 noscrip…

Let's not forget that not every page is meant for humans to read, and not every reader is attempting to consume information the same high-bandwidth (visual) way.

You might think AJAX is amazing, but I call it an accessibility nightmare.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#303

Post by kbenson »

dthunt wrote: post #301
nollidge wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disabling Javascript for privacy reasons is like blowing off your leg to prevent tennis elbow: it's overkill, and it's rather ineffective at best.

It's ineffective in the sense that it doesn't stop all of the evil. It IS effective in the sense that running no javascript really limits the amount of information people can learn about your system. Like, why should a website be able to learn about the size of my screen, the complete enumeration of all of my plugins and fonts, etc? As far as blowing off your leg, sometimes you just really hate tennis elbow, you know…

Is that sarcasm? You should know, that doesn't really work here unless explicitly noted as such. See Poe's law.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#304

Post by gnosis »

karussell wrote: post #296
gnosis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Javascript, Flash, HTML 5, and virtually all the rest of the HTML "enhancements" are a cancer on the web. Honestly, the only website that I can think of where using Javascript actually does something useful that I'd have a hard time doing better on a standalone app on my own machine is Google Maps, where it's nice to be able to scroll around by dragging the map with the mouse. But even there, I'd gladly sacrifice tha…

You are funny. IF you enter the destination in Google Maps, then of course Google knows your destination. JavaScript on or off... if you really want privacy you'll have to host it on your own or use offline navigation tools

I think you're missing my point.

I said: "I'd gladly sacrifice that feature for a standalone mapping app on my own machine, so I don't have to worry about Google spying on me whenever I decide to go somewhere!"

What I was trying to say was that I would prefer a standalone mapping application (ie. one that ran on my own machine and did not contact Google or any other site to work).

It just so happens that since I do not have such a standalone mapping application, I do resort to using Google Maps. And when I do, they do happen to have an actual useful use for Javascript, which is to allow the user to scroll the map with the mouse. But I'd gladly sacrifice that feature for a standalone (ie. not browser-based) mapping application that does not phone home to some spyware company like Google in order to work.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#305

Post by dthunt »

slaxman wrote: post #82
aaron695 wrote: post #25

> This destroys a non-technical user's grasp of the differences between static HTML and programatically manipulated HTML. I think this line says it all. Non-technical user don't even know what HTML is, the concept they'd ever "grasp of the differences between static HTML and programatically manipulated HTML"? Do these people live in the real world?

well said. The fault lies in assuming that the rest of the world works like the way we (hackers) do. The fact is that they do not. Further, many of end users actually do like some of those animations that we find shitty. JS makes the web feel responsive and interactive. I helps keep the user engaged with you site if used in the correct manner. Removing the option that easily disables it for a majority of users if the…

I will say this: it confuses the hell out of daihyou, who spends a lot of time on linkedin.

One man's 'responsive and interactive' is another man's "Did it work?"

I'm not going to make a value judgement on this bit. If snappy, responsive, and interactive are priorities, they should be handled in a way that doesn't involve opening the gates of hell and letting Javascript out. If the standards don't provide a clean way to do that that ensures accessibility and that pages don't discriminate against programmatic displays, then they damned well should so that we can exercise the hellspawn that is Javascript once and for bloody all.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#306

Post by gnosis »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #138
gnosis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Javascript, Flash, HTML 5, and virtually all the rest of the HTML "enhancements" are a cancer on the web. Honestly, the only website that I can think of where using Javascript actually does something useful that I'd have a hard time doing better on a standalone app on my own machine is Google Maps, where it's nice to be able to scroll around by dragging the map with the mouse. But even there, I'd gladly sacrifice tha…

Youtube needs either Flash or HTML5, do you think it's worthless?

Youtube's use of Flash and HTML 5 is 100%, completely worthless!

There are a million youtube downloading apps out there that don't require me to even use a web browser to download videos from youtube. And, after they're downloaded (or even during the download), I can use any number of (non-browser-based) video players to watch them.

Youtube could make it even easier to download their videos by simply providing a direct link to the video in mp4 format. No Javascript, Flash, or HTML 5 required!

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#307

Post by dthunt »

justincormack wrote: post #192
socillion wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it doesn't work without JS, is it going to work in a screen reader? Should developers have to implement extra functionality for the Nobody is forcing developers to give a damn about accessibility, but it's a bit sad that so many have thrown graceful degradation out the window.

Screen readers can generally cope with much use if JavaScript now.

key word 'much'. That's like saying something 'mostly' works and therefor 'it's not a problem'.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#308

Post by ksec »

Way too many Geeky answers here. I could understand that, after all this is Hacker News.

But Majority of Users, My guess that is 60-70% of them, wont even know what Javascript is or mean.

My bet is that there is Less then 10% of users who cares about this. And less then 5% who just cant stand to disable it in about:config instead of UI.

And It is true what Mozilla have pointed out, Disabling even some totally unrelated Javascripts like tracking will somtimes make a mess of Websites. I have seen it far too many times with Ghostery.

For those 5% who REALLY cares about Disabling Javascript for any reasons because you think you know so much. I dont see why using an Add-On or going to about:config searching for Disable Javascript is such as big hassle.

And if you DO have such a big concern over a missing UI features, you can always go to Opera.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#309

Post by pessimizer »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #283
netc wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

Really? I would think that sign would help everyone who knew how to read, bothered to read, and wanted their car to run. A sign with a simple message like that was enough to fix one national timeclock system that I worked on. "Do not do X before 12:00 Noon unless Y." in English, Spanish, and Polish.

For the people who still messed it up that we found by using heuristics on all of the punch data, we sent reports to their managers that said that they had probably done something wrong. After 3 or 4 cycles of this, the failure rate went from 15-20% to 1-2%.

Unsophisticated users remain unsophisticated users if you systematically remove configuration until the application only does one thing one way, badly.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#310

Post by dthunt »

hobs wrote: post #21
CyberDroiD wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a symptom of not really understanding the web or the browser.

I think a fair question to ask is, "If you do not understand the internet, should it be easy to disable javascript in your browser?" As a person who uses noscript every day in FF, at first I thought this was a bad idea, but the more I think about the support aspect of this, the only time I think you really should turn off JS is when you understand enough to find the advanced options.

Yeah.

I hate javascript with a fiery passion. But I'm sensitive to (possibly real) arguments that people are accidentally disabling it because they start clicking random stuff in the 'content' tab of preferences. So move it to 'advanced' and call it a day.

Post reply on HN