11 ms·

The author demonstrated why Firefox, et al, made the correct choice on his example page. I visited his page using Firefox and the video would not play. My gue

The author demonstrated why Firefox, et al, made the correct choice on his example page. I visited his page using Firefox and the video would not play. My guess is that you need javascript turned on to play the videos on his site. I almost never enable javascript, and certainly would not do so just to watch a little video. It sounds like Firefox and others are trying to make the web pages more universally work.

IgorPartola 17y ago
I am sorry but that is insane. Today's web relies heavily on JavaScript. I recommend you get yourself a clean browser (maybe on a virtual machine), if you are paranoid about security (SecurityMatters huh?), and try using Google Maps, Google Calendar, et al.
- aw3c2 17y ago
  "Today's web" works just fine without Javascript if you browse around. One can easily enabled it per-site in good browsers for the sites where you actually need it. It has the nice benefit that a lot of distracting annoyances (just to mention snap.com, most advertising, those pesky "2000 social web icons popup" footers) simply disappear. If you want '"today's web"' with all its glittery blingbling and distractions, then go ahead. But don't fall for the illusion that you would miss anything by browsing with Javascript off by default.
- youngian 17y ago
  Turning off Javascript is not insane. JS opens you up to a wide range of possible security problems. Also, you can think of it ideologically - websites should still work with JS turned off. Building an accessible, semantic, well-formed website means building a website that works without Javascript. The only exceptions are Google Maps or anything equally as rich. And I do mean equally as rich.
  - rimantas 17y ago
    You know, times has changed recently. Now we have not only web sites, but the web apps too. And there different rules apply.
    - youngian 17y ago
      Yes, and the vast majority of web apps boil down to forms with some flashy bits added. I'm not saying the flashy bits aren't nice, but you should build your forms in such a way that they still work without Javascript. Like I said, Google Maps is my yardstick - anything less complicated than that should be built to work without Javascript. It might work slightly different and be a little less pretty, but there's no reason it can't work.
      - prodigal_erik 17y ago
        Google Maps is of course less interactive and shiny but still works fine without js. I'm dismayed that we don't routinely expect all web developers to be similarly talented and thorough. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&output=html&q=1+Infinite+Loop,+Cupertino,+Santa+Clara,+California+95014&ie=UTF8&hl=en&cd=1&geocode=Ff6gOQIde_W5-A&split=0&zoom=3 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&output=ht...
        IgorPartola 17y ago
        Interestingly, a while ago I had an application where JavaScript was added later on in the game. The result was that we could split into two apps: a rich fast glitzy one and a basic one suitable for mobile devices.
        youngian 17y ago
        That's one of the best arguments for accessibility (and the associated host of issues like semantic HTML and Javascript). Sometimes things you do in the name of accessibility will bring other benefits. I read an interesting analogy in an article (which I have since lost and so cannot give credit) about accessibility: Oxo, the kitchen tools company, started by designing tools for people with arthritis. Having designed tools with nice soft rubber grips and large handles, they discovered that non-arthritic people really liked the tools as well, and now Oxo is sold at your local Target (and they are probably raking in cash).
  - IgorPartola 17y ago
    Sure. Check out http://www.bu.edu/maps http://www.bu.edu/maps. I agree that any "content" site should work, but as I use more and more web applications, I tend to rely on niceties of JavaScript more and more. Yes, it is a security concern, but keeping your browser up to date is not that hard. For the rest: AdBlock Plus solves my problems.
- SecurityMatters 17y ago
  A clean browser would not address the problem. I think it is insane to browse with javascript, once you understand how it works. You are essentially letting random people run their code on your machine. How could that possibly be a good idea? I realize I miss out on a few fancy sites, but there is so much available, I just move along to the next story. I've never used Google Calendar. I went over the code in Google Maps before I decided it was reasonably safe. That takes some time, and I have to do it every once in a while, since Google changes it. Most sites are not worth that trouble. I don't say you are insane for blithely running javascript. You just obviously don't care much about security. That is your decision.
fhars 17y ago
Actually, your comment clearly illustrates why the choice Firefox et al. made is completely wrong. The only reason the video doesn't show in your browser is that he had been forced to use javascript hackery instead of a plain video elements to override this braindead default behavior. If they had made the correct choice, it would have worked for you, too.
- SecurityMatters 17y ago
  I demonstrate no such thing. It may be true that a better example of an embedded video element would show why it is a bad idea. I am open to trying other examples of properly coded video elements. My point was that the author did not demonstrate his point and it could be that Firefox et al made the choice for a good reason he did not understand. I still suspect that, but there is not good evidence here either way.

IgorPartola 17y ago

I am sorry but that is insane. Today's web relies heavily on JavaScript. I recommend you get yourself a clean browser (maybe on a virtual machine), if you are paranoid about security (SecurityMatters huh?), and try using Google Maps, Google Calendar, et al.

aw3c2 17y ago
"Today's web" works just fine without Javascript if you browse around. One can easily enabled it per-site in good browsers for the sites where you actually need it. It has the nice benefit that a lot of distracting annoyances (just to mention snap.com, most advertising, those pesky "2000 social web icons popup" footers) simply disappear. If you want '"today's web"' with all its glittery blingbling and distractions, then go ahead. But don't fall for the illusion that you would miss anything by browsing with Javascript off by default.
youngian 17y ago
Turning off Javascript is not insane. JS opens you up to a wide range of possible security problems. Also, you can think of it ideologically - websites should still work with JS turned off. Building an accessible, semantic, well-formed website means building a website that works without Javascript. The only exceptions are Google Maps or anything equally as rich. And I do mean equally as rich.
- rimantas 17y ago
  You know, times has changed recently. Now we have not only web sites, but the web apps too. And there different rules apply.
  - youngian 17y ago
    Yes, and the vast majority of web apps boil down to forms with some flashy bits added. I'm not saying the flashy bits aren't nice, but you should build your forms in such a way that they still work without Javascript. Like I said, Google Maps is my yardstick - anything less complicated than that should be built to work without Javascript. It might work slightly different and be a little less pretty, but there's no reason it can't work.
    - prodigal_erik 17y ago
      Google Maps is of course less interactive and shiny but still works fine without js. I'm dismayed that we don't routinely expect all web developers to be similarly talented and thorough. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&output=html&q=1+Infinite+Loop,+Cupertino,+Santa+Clara,+California+95014&ie=UTF8&hl=en&cd=1&geocode=Ff6gOQIde_W5-A&split=0&zoom=3 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&output=ht...
      - IgorPartola 17y ago
        Interestingly, a while ago I had an application where JavaScript was added later on in the game. The result was that we could split into two apps: a rich fast glitzy one and a basic one suitable for mobile devices.
        youngian 17y ago
        That's one of the best arguments for accessibility (and the associated host of issues like semantic HTML and Javascript). Sometimes things you do in the name of accessibility will bring other benefits. I read an interesting analogy in an article (which I have since lost and so cannot give credit) about accessibility: Oxo, the kitchen tools company, started by designing tools for people with arthritis. Having designed tools with nice soft rubber grips and large handles, they discovered that non-arthritic people really liked the tools as well, and now Oxo is sold at your local Target (and they are probably raking in cash).
- IgorPartola 17y ago
  Sure. Check out http://www.bu.edu/maps http://www.bu.edu/maps. I agree that any "content" site should work, but as I use more and more web applications, I tend to rely on niceties of JavaScript more and more. Yes, it is a security concern, but keeping your browser up to date is not that hard. For the rest: AdBlock Plus solves my problems.
SecurityMatters 17y ago
A clean browser would not address the problem. I think it is insane to browse with javascript, once you understand how it works. You are essentially letting random people run their code on your machine. How could that possibly be a good idea? I realize I miss out on a few fancy sites, but there is so much available, I just move along to the next story. I've never used Google Calendar. I went over the code in Google Maps before I decided it was reasonably safe. That takes some time, and I have to do it every once in a while, since Google changes it. Most sites are not worth that trouble. I don't say you are insane for blithely running javascript. You just obviously don't care much about security. That is your decision.

fhars 17y ago

Actually, your comment clearly illustrates why the choice Firefox et al. made is completely wrong. The only reason the video doesn't show in your browser is that he had been forced to use javascript hackery instead of a plain video elements to override this braindead default behavior. If they had made the correct choice, it would have worked for you, too.

SecurityMatters 17y ago
I demonstrate no such thing. It may be true that a better example of an embedded video element would show why it is a bad idea. I am open to trying other examples of properly coded video elements. My point was that the author did not demonstrate his point and it could be that Firefox et al made the choice for a good reason he did not understand. I still suspect that, but there is not good evidence here either way.