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

331–340 of 373 posts

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#331

Post by driverdan »

camus wrote: post #53

I exclusively surf with javascript disabled by default. I only turn javascript on on websites that i trust or the site has to give a good reason to do so. i wont turn on javascript to display your crappy jquery menu or slideshow. So many pages are totally broken without javascript. You dont need javascript to have a good layout, a complexe menu or display images. Yet some "professional" sites dont even work without j…

Why wouldn't you use the NoScript extension? Not only does it give you fine grain control over JS but it adds additional security monitoring, such as click jacking.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#332

Post by PavlovsCat »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #261
bad_user wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I said "customizable" I didn't mean in terms of settings, but it terms of what you can do with Extensions/Add-ons. Name another browser where the Firebug-like functionality is an extension and not something built-in.

What can FF extensions do that Opera extensions can't?

I'll take no answer as an answer then =^.^=

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#333

Post by gnosis »

driverdan wrote: post #330
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…

TL;DR: Get off my lawn. HN demonstrates good use of JS: AJAX voting. Forcing you to navigate to another page in order to vote is slow, annoying, and disruptive. Plenty of sites make good use of JS. For those who don't use NoScript.

Since I've switched mostly to a browser that doesn't support Javascript, I've stopped voting on HN.

Not voting is also a good way to avoid being tracked and pigeonholed.

It's true that if everybody did that, this site would be a lot less useful. However, I'm not convinced that some sort of anonymous yet secure and transparent voting system can't be implemented.

But, while voting requires enabling technolgy that will help others track and pigeonhole me, as well as make my system less secure, I'm going to avoid it.

Fortunately, HN is still readable without Javascript (even though it annoyingly doesn't indent threaded comments properly without it -- something that Slashdot manages to do just fine without requiring JS).

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#335

Post by gnosis »

Groxx wrote: post #329
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…

So you're not OK with giving a site a fairly narrow range of sandboxed permissions, but you are OK with installing an opaque binary that can read, modify, transmit, and destroy nearly every piece of your data on your computer.

Who said anything about it having to be a binary?

You have heard of open source software that doesn't need a browser to run, haven't you?

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#336

Post by SkyMarshal »

This is a heavy-handed solution that could be better solved simply by adding more explanatory tooltips. Something like:

[x] Disable Javascript. This will break or significantly reduce the functionality of many websites, but will also prevent them from gathering marketing and other data on you. [Details](http://www.mozilla.org/javascript)

Make the primary tradeoffs clear, supply a link to a mozilla.org site with a more comprehensive explanation of what you give up and gain.

Programmers like to simplify, abstract, and modularize, but that isn't always the best strategy with language. Sometimes, even with control panel tooltips, it's better to be a little bit more verbose, take up a little more screen real estate, if it saves your users some trial-and-error time or a trip to Google.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#337

Post by Isofarro »

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…

> 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?

Make the request from your server, parse it on your server, template it on your server, and deliver the HTML result to your user.

> 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.

Perhaps the developers of these modern, rich content-heavy sites can learn how to do their jobs properly?

> Is your idea of gracefully handling this situation putting a noscript tag there saying "please enable JS"?

No. It goes far deeper than that, naturally. Progressive enhancement ( https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/making-software/progressiv... ) is about defining what is considered the core experience, defining the true value your site offers to your users, identifying the use cases that are utterly essential. It's these features that should be _implemented_ in a way that doesn't depend on JavaScript. So you build this layer first, and get it working. Then, you identify the enhancements, user experience improvements, the bells & whistles, and use JavaScript to fill in those gaps. Confident in the knowledge that should the JavaScript fail (for a plethora of different and uncontrollable reasons) the core experience will continue working. Then you consider the nice-to-have features, and decide how much of that is appropriate to incorporate as a core-experience level, and what improvements can be made with JavaScript.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#338

Post by jessaustin »

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.

I doubt anyone makes the diesel-gasoline mistake more than once. Browsing to a broken or insecure site (never mind that the brokenness or insecurity is due to javascript being off and on respectively), however, is done all the time.

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#339

Post by Isofarro »

bpatrianakos wrote: post #39
sergiotapia wrote: post #3

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!

It's even more relevant now with all the front end JavaScript frameworks that so many web apps rely on these days. In an age where web sites are now web apps that rely almost totally on JavaScript to function removing this option except for those who really have a good reason is acceptable and probably preferable. I feel like educating users is becoming harder and harder due to how hard we've all pushed for "it just…

> It's even more relevant now with all the front end > JavaScript frameworks that so many web apps rely on > these days.

Hardly. The number of people who chose to disable JavaScript is utterly dwarfed by the factors that get in the way of JavaScript successfully executing on the page.

Very simply: A browser can not execute JavaScript it hasn't received: http://isolani.co.uk/blog/javascript/DisablingJavaScriptAski...

You are reliant on factors outside of your control. For example, a well-intentioned DNS Blacklist took down loads of Fortune 500 companies: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/05/google_opendns_clash...

Re: "Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

#340

Post by Isofarro »

kondro wrote: post #98
aethr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my preferred use of js, providing additional functionality and usability improvements on top of things that already work perfectly well with js disabled. Users with js still get the "fuller" experience, but users who choose to disable js still have full access to the site.

But developers shouldn't have to implement extra functionality for the < 1% [citation needed] of people who browse without JS .

But you have to implement this "extra functionality" already. Or, how are you dealing with situations where your JavaScript fails to reach your user's browser? How are you dealing with situations where the JavaScript arrives in the browser but doesn't execute?

This "extra functionality" is the same "extra functionality" as having a safety cage designed and implemented in a car. Sure, it's just extra functionality that most people will never ever use. Hopefully. Touch wood.

Post reply on HN