10 ms·

"Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

445 points by joallard 13y ago

sergiotapia 13y ago
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!
- bpatrianakos 13y ago
  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 works" type experiences so rather than fight the tide Mozilla is going with it. Plus, apart from security concerns which can be dealt with other ways, JavaScript engines are now capable of running multiple web apps in many tabs simultaneously without being noticed. Wasn't performance one of the primary reasons for having this option back in the day? Now its not an issue. Going forward we might not see a disable js button and think it just as normal as not seeing an option to disable CSS or even html. It's kind of a non-optional piece of the web now.
  - Isofarro 13y ago
    > 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/DisablingJavaScriptAskingTheWrongQuestion 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/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/05/google_opendns_clash...
- exodust 13y ago
  Completely agree. Non technical users generally won't find the option to disable javascript, and won't understand it if they do find it. Enabled by default, users are better off using add-ons to disable or block JS where whitelists or better yet blacklists can be defined.
- smokestack 13y ago
  What's awful is that the update reportedly enables JS even if you had previously disabled it, though I doubt this was intentional.
  - JadeNB 13y ago
    Why do you think it was unintentional? It's specifically mentioned in the "Checkboxes that kill" blogpost, so they're hardly unaware of it. (I agree that the changing of existing settings is the offensive part.)
srikarg 13y ago
That's a good move to make considering the numerous JavaScript-dependent web applications present today!
swiftin 13y ago
Why is taking away features "in" now?
- nwh 13y ago
  I'll bite. Due to the names Java and JavaScript being so similar, users get confused when their technically-minded friend recommends that they disable Java in their browser. Somewhat like ham and hamster, with no prior knowledge the user has no idea that the technologies are entirely different. I've personally had to help a number of people out who have mistakenly disabled JavaScript. That was the impression I got.
- hayksaakian 13y ago
  In theory, to make way for new ones and to avoid clutter in the UI.
- CyberDroiD 13y ago
  It's a symptom of not really understanding the web or the browser.
  - hobs 13y ago
    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.
    - dthunt 13y ago
      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.
- mehwoot 13y ago
CyberDroiD 13y ago
Javascript is not required to read articles on the web. It's optional. That's why "Reader" mode is so handy, just show me the article so I can read it. Sometimes I don't like waiting for my browser to struggle with poorly written JS. It sounds like a classic noobie mistake... "Why are users able to turn off Javascript?" "No idea." "Remove the feature!" If anyone says Javascript is not optional, they are trying to sell you something: probably web apps!
- nwh 13y ago
  > Javascript is not required to read articles on the web. Unfortunately, it very much is. Nearly every website on the internet is completely useless without JavaScript. I visited a large number of links from the HN front page, and many of them had broken navigation or images. You can't actually vote on HN itself either.
  - Nav_Panel 13y ago
    Hacker News sans voting is nowhere near completely useless. I strongly suspect that a majority of people who read HN don't even have accounts (and thus are unable to vote). And even if the posts do contain broken links/images, a fair amount of text is often still available; I think a site's textual content is often its most important feature (unless it's a site specifically geared toward images/interactive content). The "1% Rule"[0] grew out of this idea -- the hypothesis it poses is that 89% of the users of a given internet forum are strictly lurkers. HN has a more tech-oriented population than many forums, so I bet the differences between groups are less extreme, but I also bet that the overall trend still stands. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)
    - veemjeem 13y ago
      Right, but the change isn't targeting you, the hacker news reader. There's dozens of mom & pops out there who have no understanding how browsers work and when they disable javascript, they'll complain that firefox can't render pages as well as IE.
muyuu 13y ago
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/js-switch/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/js-switch/
grannyg00se 13y ago
The bug was resolved as invalid with no explanation. I hope that by the time this makes it to regular release the transition is handled better.
gkoberger 13y ago
Here's a very relevant blog post by Alex Limi of Mozilla: http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ 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 help with this — but it’s not something that we should ship to hundreds of millions of users. (EDIT: this is the relevant quote, but worth reading the whole article)
- x0x0 13y ago
  The other thing Alex posted is firefox really gives you no indication of why the internet looks weird and is breaking left and right. So you can disable js or images or ssl and unless you're lucky enough to know a programmer or IT person really have no guide to undoing whatever happened.
  - x0x0 13y ago
    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 and creating a new profile. I don't like safari as a browser, but it's to apple's credit that they offer this simple option so I tell my mother / mother-in-law to just click reset if the internet is weird.
    - steve-howard 13y ago
      In firefox, go to "about:support", "reset firefox." Probably not exactly the same (and it's not exposed as easily) but it's there.
      - x0x0 13y ago
BoyWizard 13y ago
> This destroys a non-technical user's grasp of the differences between static HTML and programatically manipulated HTML. It hides the setting amidst hundreds of other obscure settings, and does not emphasize the extremely powerful tool that JavaScript is, and the fact that it is optional. Most 'non-technical users' don't have a clue about HTML, Javascipt, static features, etc. To them the internet consists of Facebook, Google and Youtube. Arguably users who want to disable Javascript could be classified as 'technical', at least enough to be able to Google either a) how to do it from within Firefox, or b) install a plugin such as NoScript to do it for them.
- readme 13y ago
  Right. Non-technical users do not think that way, at all. Javascript and HTML are implementation details of the website they are using. Even people who hire IT consultants tend not to understand these things much, although they might think they do. I can imagine most web developers who freelance have dealt with a complaint from a client who had mistakenly turned off JavaScript, at least once.
  - btipling 13y ago
    Non-technical users do not even know what a browser is, much less anything about HTML or JavaScript.
    - Gormo 13y ago
      What exactly is a non-technical user? I read threads like this all the time: someone talks about "non-technical users" or "your grandma" or "pointy-haired bosses" or the like, and then goes to great length to discuss, in detail, the capacities or cognitive styles or knowledge base of members of these hypothetical categories. It all seems like a bunch of arbitrary assumptions.
      - smtddr 13y ago
        I don't know about anyone else's experience, but these assumptions are pretty dead-on in my own personal experience. Non-techies(my mom, or somebody who only uses home computers for email & turbo-tax and some super-locked-down PC at work) don't have a clue what/how it's doing what it does. The blue "E" on the desktop is the internet, sometimes it's even the whole computer when they say "My computer doesn't work". They most _definitely_ don't have a clue what HTML or javascript is, or what that blue "e" on their desktop is. That being said, not to come off as some arrogant know-it-all, I admit I know very little about how my car works. I just take to the dealer and do the suggested maintenance. I'm sure I'm paying more than I should somewhere but I don't care... however, I'm starting to think it's more dangerous not to know how a computer and the internet work than it is to not know how your car works.
aaron695 13y ago
> 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?
- slaxman 13y ago
  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 right step. Hackers will always find a way around it.
  - dthunt 13y ago
    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.
Osmose 13y ago
Here's the bug where the option was removed: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851702 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/ 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 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=864249 And of course addons like NoScript or js-switch are available if you still want this in your UI: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/noscript/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/noscript/ and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/js-switch/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/js-switch/
- mullingitover 13y ago
  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.
  - tracker1 13y ago
    Guessing you don't use facebook, twitter or any major webmail provider like 99.99% of the users online do. For over 99% of users this is a feature that shouldn't be visible.. for the other 0.0x% there is about:config ... I don't bitch about having to go into about:config to change my cache settings for when I am testing...
  - zevyoura 13y ago
    You can blame the web at large for moving in a direction that assumes JS is enabled, but that doesn't make the UX better.
    - tracker1 13y ago
      One thing that surprised me a lot recently, is I started a rewrite of my personal website using Bootstrap as a base, where the old one used jQueryUI... iirc, I included the kitchen sink in the old version.. however, the new one came in a bit heavier on the download/overhead... even with a better min/merge plan. I can say the new version I am working on looks better, and is actually usable on a phone, just the same, I am not sure I'd like to see the UX on a bandwidth constrained mobile connection.. it's still well under 1MB total, but it seems that we should be working towards being under 100K for an initial load, and given all the targets for different browsers, and work arounds, and libraries, tools etc.. I just don't know where we are going. We have more target browsers and size constraints than ever, and it's more complicated than ever. I don't miss the V4 browser wars (IE4/NN4) but it seems that targeting a 700px wide or 960px wide site was way easier than the rules today, mobile first or not.
kondro 13y ago
I can't remember the last time I wrote an application that didn't rely on Javascript for even parts of its basic functionality. I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS enabled and the average user definitely would never turn it off except in error, causing them to think the browser is broken. Every single common-use browser on the Internet supports Javascript, there is no reason to assume it is not there as a developer.
- straight_talk 13y ago
  >> I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS enabled Security, performance, JS ads ... >> Every single common-use browser on the Internet supports Javascript My company provides a web based app to Fortune 500 banks, around 15% of the browsers we see have JS disabled.
  - dbaupp 13y ago
    > around 15% of the browsers we see have JS disabled How many are bots/scrapers?
  - kondro 13y ago
    15% of browsers? I don't believe it. This has definitely not been my experience. You must be counting scrapers/bots in this total. Security? The browser sandboxes everything.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - andor 13y ago
      Some people have valuable data inside their browsers. Javascript code can access this data. Also, browsers aren't bug-free, and enabling Javascript significantly increases the attack surface.
      - tokenizerrr 13y ago
overgard 13y ago
I'm surprised that checkbox hung around as long as it did. I imagine only maybe .001% of browser users actually really cared enough to turn that off, and if they did, they were probably already running something like NoScript since toggling it in the preferences all the time is way too blunt an instrument anyway.
SmokyBorbon 13y ago
Firefox 2002-2013
holalala 13y ago
Looks like the reason behind the move is that preferences UI has become incomprehensible ... which actually doesn't have anything to do with javascript. Perhaps a move towards Eclipse-like preferences would be a wiser choice?
kijin 13y ago
I supppose too many people accidentally disabled Javascript in recent months while trying to disable Java. As long as there's an about:config option that does the same thing, I don't think it's a bad move to remove that option from view. I will, however, miss the "Advanced" button next to the "Enable JavaScript" checkbox (if that button is going to go away, too, which the article isn't clear about). I use those Advanced options all the time to prevent websites from messing with my neatly tiled windows and trying to prevent me from using the right mouse button. Here in South Korea, the majority of blogs and forums have right-click protection enabled (and refuse to display any content if you disable Javascript altogether) due to ridiculous defaults in popular platforms, and every other website feels like they have the right to go full-screen. Firefox is the only thing that makes this stupid trend bearable. I guess I'll have to go and check whether NoScript has a similar option.
- thristian 13y ago
  I can confirm the "Advanced" button is gone. At least for the moment, the dom.disable_window_move_resize and dom.event.contextmenu.enabled preferences still exist in about:config, though.
  - 51Cards 13y ago
    This is what will be the major issue for me. I toggle the right click override option on and off on a very regular basis.
    - A321 13y ago
      Shift + right click is the shortcut to always go to the browser context menu.. No need to toggle preferences.
      - Livven 13y ago
        Thank you. I'm not familiar with JavaScript but would it be possible for websites to block shift+right click as well? EDIT: Per this comment [1] holding shift causes Firefox to bypass event handlers, so hopefully that wouldn't be possible. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968919
Shank 13y ago
There was a talk (or podcast?) that discussed how cluttered with vestigial options Firefox and other browsers are. One of the examples was JS - if you turn it off entirely it makes the entire web seemingly broken. As long as the option is there for power users, this is the kind of thing that removing will probably cause less headaches for people in the long term.
- duskwuff 13y ago
  You're probably thinking of "Checkboxes That Kill": http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ - and I believe it's what inspired Firefox to remove the option.
  - Shank 13y ago
    That's exactly what it is. Thanks!
gnosis 13y ago
A few months ago, I switched to using w3m inside emacs as my primary browser. w3m is not capable of handling Javascript at all. And you know what, for 90% of the websites I visit, it doesn't matter. They function fine and look fine without Javascript. And if w3m could manage to make most websites look fine without Javascript, so could Firefox -- if its developers cared. As for non-technical users -- they're probably not going to be opening Firefox's Preferences dialog in the first place. And if they do, they probably aren't going to start randomly checking and unchecking stuff to see what it does. That's something an adventurous geek might try, but certainly not your typical non-technical user. If Firefox developers wanted to additionally protect the average user from this dangerous button, they could have simply stuck it in the Advanced tab of the Preferences dialog, or added a scary warning about being doubly sure that the user knows what he's doing (like they do with about:config). That said, I'm happy to use NoScript for this functionality anyway, as it's far more flexible than a blanket "turn off Javascript everywhere with no exceptions" button.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  What is your take on w3m vs elinks?
  - gnosis 13y ago
    I really haven't used it much, except as my default external HTML->Text converter (via wget + HTML::FormatText::Elinks), of which it does a good job. Unfortunately, its main weakness is that (as far as I know) it's not integrated in to emacs as w3m is. If it was, I'd probably look to it as a serious contender. But since it's not, I'm afraid I'm stuck with w3m -- for better or for worse. (Right now, it's for better, as I'm quite satisfied with w3m -- except for my occasional Javascript needs, for which I fall back to Firefox, Opera, or Chromium).
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Hmm, gotcha. I like elinks for it's pretty solid mouse/256color support in in terminal emulators but I haven't used it "from" other programs like emacs (just tmux). In that capacity, elinks is my primary browser for reading documentation (since I usually associate documentation with particular tmux sessions and leave it open for weeks or months on end). w3m has image support in some terminals though, which fascinates me. I feel like I should probably investigate that some more.
holalala 13y ago
disabling javascript is the most effective method against XSS, so it's really bad choice to not be able to do it simply. not that firefox would be that security-minded in other areas regarding to javascript (XSS + form autofill without SecureLogin addon = fun & profit for hackers)
camus 13y ago
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 javascript on, All you see is a blank page. And by the way, there is a tag called noscript , but it seems webdesigners that only think about demonstrating their "html5" talents dont know their basics. Javascript is the new flash. Stupid cheesy animations , heavy pages , memory leaks that kill your browser, javascript intros that you cant skip ,broken parallax scrolling , slow scrollbars so it feels like you are on ipad , it will be worse than flash when designers start abusing Adobe Edge on all their websites. So long firefox...
- gkoberger 13y ago
  Try an extension? Power users aren't the target market for this decision, and that's why add-ons exist.
- gnosis 13y ago
  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 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! Geez. The web has become a gigantic spyware advertising network, and Javascript, Flash, and related garbage are some of the main enablers of it. </rant>
  - slaxman 13y ago
    May be that works for you. But a significant number of web developers are moving on JS frameworks for web development such Angular, Meteor, Node, etc. Most sites built on these frameworks will break is javascript is disabled. As an end user, that is the worst user experience you can ask for.
alister 13y ago
Wow, how times change. The smart advice was to never use Javascript. (Years ago pg even wrote, "I would not even use Javascript, if I were you. Most of the Javascript I see on the Web isn't necessary, and much of it breaks." ) Javascript has gone from horribly flaky -> occasionally useful -> necessary -> mandatory.
- tracker1 13y ago
  That's because more people are actually taking the time to understand the browser, dom, markup and language itself, instead of copy/pasting some poorly written image-swapping script. (God I've seen too many of those)... JS has been capable of doing some fairly impressive app-like functionality since the late 90's. I'd say NN4/IE4 was the beginning of that ability, despite dramatically different approaches. Today, browsers have far more in common (regarding js/dom) with each other (IE8+ too) than at any point pre-2005. And it is about damned time. I still think the likes of jQuery round out a ton of those rough edges, and it still disappoints me to see so many who hate JS because they want it to be (insert preferred language here). JS is, and has been my favorite language for a very long time.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  You imply that javascript stopped being flaky. I find that it's often flakiest on sites where it's mandatory.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
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.
- asnyder 13y ago
  Why do you think Opera has gone the way of the dodo? It's an excellent browser, by far the best browser in my opinion. Furthermore, they're changing their renderer to webkit which will ensure no more Opera incompatibility. If anything, Opera just keeps getting better.
  - dmpk2k 13y ago
    The newest version of Opera strips away most of the tools power users like. It's one step away from Chrome's UI. They'll probably add most of it back, but it'll take a long time.
    - asnyder 13y ago
      I thought Opera Next is just a beta for testing the renderer. I don't think they consider it the new version of Opera yet, as it doesn't come up as a new version. I'm sure they wouldn't be so stupid to remove all the nice new features they've recently added and that their loyal following rely on.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    I know it's the best, I am using it was we speak and have been doing so since 2000. The last time I tried it Opera Next after the switch to blink, I couldn't install it -- so I read the comments instead, and it sounded like a gazillion of features were missing. If those get all transferred, I am happy and you can strike that comment. But if they only transfer the shiny stuff "most people need", I'd love to move on, just because all of this is sad and I don't wanna see it anymore. Don't get me wrong, I always wished Opera mainstream success. But I think there is also something to be said for niches, and the desire to appease the existing average just because the balance book says that's the best, needs to be called out on sight. Imagine authors only writing books 98% of the people agreed with or cared about. We'd still be in caves with that attitude. I know making tools isn't exactly the same, but it's also not totally different, IMHO. We need to aim higher than were we are. Every sports fan knows more and more complicated facts than even using all features of Opera would require. Riding a bicycle, much less driving a car, is more complicated than being aware of what option you just clicked - ffs! If even Firefox can't help but caving in like that, I simply won't dare to hope Opera does better, until I actually see that happening. I am sorry for ranting, this topic is a huge pet peeve of me. Like when Apple talked about how folder hierarchies are "too complicated", gah. I know I'm expecting too much of people, but I really would rather err on the side of that, than on the side of expecting too little, and then getting exactly that.
bdcravens 13y ago
Is it just me, or do most of the commenters here seem to believe that it's no longer possible to disable JavaScript, as opposed to it simply being removed from the UI?
ilaksh 13y ago
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 developers who really want the web to just be a bunch of static HTML are actually inhibiting that vision of a web platform. Because if disabling JavaScript were to become popular, that takes away that capability of web browsers to run applications. The conversation would go from something like "we can use JavaScript and this application will run for anyone who has a new version of Firefox, Chrome, or IE10/11, or Safari" to "we can deploy our application to the latest browsers, but we will have to first present a screen asking users to enable JavaScript on our site" or something along those lines. It goes from being a ubiquitous cross-platform solution to one that will only run for people who like JavaScript. JavaScript in the browser is by far the best option we have now and in the foreseeable future for easily deploying applications across different types of operating systems and even devices. Its amazing to me how many people don't appreciate that goal or really take it into account.
- zanny 13y ago
  I just want to mention that the order of operations here was that the web took the world by storm overnight and application developers said "there is a turning complete language in the standard, lets use it for programs rather than document scripting". It didn't start out as lets make an application platform that can be accessed via url, it was make a document format (html) and share them over a network protocol (http) and provide scripting with javascript, and when everyone and their moms PC had that, developers started saying "can't we make that into a full blown application platform?" (besides failed experiments like java plugins or flash as an application framework) I really wish we had just let html be documents and made a real remote-access application framework to work along side it, rather than having your program be 2 - 3 tags of html and 5MB of js. I'd much rather be sharing a qml application than an html5 one, because the latter was ground up designed to be a full featured interactive graphical interface program. That would actually be neat, if browser engines included a qml parser and could load qml files as programs in the browser window frame. It is just extended javascript after all.
Ankaios 13y ago
If Firefox's developers are worried about people not understanding why a page doesn't work, another potential solution would be to provide users with some feedback. For instance, if Javascript is disabled but present in a page, perhaps show a (simplified?) small debugger box showing the next lines of Javascript which would have been executed and some sort of an obvious Run / Play button to start the script. I'd prefer if browsers treated the Web as less of a black box, and if they erred more toward helping users understand the world they are exploring.
- dave1010uk 13y ago
  This is a great idea, but should probably be simpler for the average user. Eg "You have JS off, which will break some websites. Click here to turn it on. The simple option you used in the past to toggle this has gone. Click here to find out how to toggle it now"
sampk 13y ago
Classic Brendan Eich.
dmiladinov 13y ago
As long as you can still disable JS via about:config or NoScript, this is hardly worrisome.
aerolite 13y ago
Stop disabling Javascript, you Luddite. The entire web depends on it.
saejox 13y ago
There are more people who disable JS unintentionally than those who do it intentionally. This is a good move. Option still exists in about:config.
ck2 13y ago
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.
- PommeDeTerre 13y ago
  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 I install Firefox. They did this with the status bar, and it hurt Firefox's usability. Now many of us have to waste time installing extensions to restore this core functionality. This case may be even worse, because it's not a one-time fix. Now we'll have to go digging through about:config options each time we want to disable JavaScript, or wait until Firefox 24 so we can disable JavaScript through the developer tools. Many of us are just plain getting fed up with Mozilla's bad decisions, and very justifiably so.
  - mhaymo 13y ago
    - 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 dislike change, and I'd advise you to simply turn off automatic updates. The rest of us are happy for improvements to be made.
    - PommeDeTerre 13y ago
      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.
dewiz 13y ago
many web sites don't work without cookies either, specifically the authentication. if the functionality of "modern" sites is the only rationale, it is simply a wrong decision by Mozilla.
- tomjen3 13y ago
  You can't make authentication to work safely without cookies because HTTP isn't stateful.
bad_user 13y ago
Firefox is the most customizable browser available. It's about time they cleaned-up their Preferences panel and leave that stuff for extensions to tackle. I personally never disabled Javascript from the Preferences panel because I never find anything in that panel. To disable Javascript, I use the Web Developer toolbar, which is much more convenient, although not convenient enough - since one might want to enable/disable Javascript automatically on a domain basis, which is why this should be best handled by extensions that are free to innovate the UI. And while we are at it, I wish Firefox would add a search box in that Preferences panel. Its usefulness has been demonstrated in Chrome's Settings and Windows' Control Panel. Also, Firefox rocks and I'm so happy to see it improve.
- hnha 13y ago
  Have you tried opera (not the latest Chrome-bastard but earlier versions)? I'd challenge your statement, opera seems much more customizable to me.
  - bad_user 13y ago
    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.
    - lmm 13y ago
      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)?
      - bad_user 13y ago
        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 rather XUL+XPCOM, abstracting over the various native toolkits: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XUL https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XUL Only Firefox on Linux uses GTK. Even on Linux, there have been previous attempts at supporting Qt as the backend for KDE, but all failed because of the easiness with which you can make GTK look like whatever KDE theme you've got selected - not perfect, but the flaws where not enough to gather interest in further development. There's even XULRunner, for easily building and packaging XUL+XPCOM standalone apps: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/XULRunner https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/XULRunner This isn't to say that XUL/Gekko are perfect as their complexity was often the subject of criticism, which is why Mozilla replaced XUL completely with HTML5 in Firefox OS and will probably do so in future Firefox versions - as they are also working on Servo, a next-gen rendering engine that doesn't do XUL anymore: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/research/projects/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/research/projects/ Imagine a browser who's every facet and functionality is customizable by HTML5/Javascript extensions that you can install with one click. That's what Firefox already is - the Emacs of browsers. For example, if my Firebug example wasn't enough, when Chrome was released, many people loved the light download progress functionality that wasn't opening an annoying modal window. Pretty soon an extension called the Download Statusbar happened: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/download-statusbar/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/download-stat...
ID_10T 13y ago
This will obviously receive a lot of hate from the tech community. Fortunately they are the 1%. For everyone else in the world, this is a welcomed change. Most people don't even know what JavaScript is.
gcb0 13y ago
Didn't gnome3 taught us a valuable lesson on dumbing things down on the expectation that users are dumb/can't read?
- readme 13y ago
  I hope you realize that the users of Gnome and other X11 desktops have already passed a serious level of technical literacy. In the event they haven't, it's because they're the direct family member of some techie.
ID_10T 13y ago
As a Firefox user, I feel like most of the people complaining are Chrome users just looking to pick a fight. Hey, Chrome folks, Firefox has this great thing called NoScript. I realize Chrome doesn't have that, so you have to manually disable/enable JavaScript. We just use NoScript, as we have for years, which does a lot more. Firefox users don't rely on the "Disable JavaScript" option, nor ever did. This is a nonissue, but continue to make it more than it is.
wooptoo 13y ago
About time. JS is an integral part of the web experience.
crististm 13y ago
That spencer guy really sounds like a smartass; I mean, we're too stupid to be around him and not seeing the light that shines through his ass; vent off
Fuxy 13y ago
Well JS can be disabled with the help of plugins however I find it ominous that you have to be an expert user/programmer to disabled javascript. There are a lot of websites out there that use javascript for less than reputable purposes so not being able to disable it when you know you might run into them is insecure. Like say using tor where having JS enabled is like asking to be tracked. I know disabling JS is not an option on the modern web but then ship with something like noscript instead don't just leave users exposed. This is not a feature that can just be removed it needs to be replaced instead.
philbo 13y ago
The following rant is somewhat tangential but, as a front-end developer that takes pride in progressively enhancing websites I work on, I think this is a shame for a different reason. So many times when speaking to employers/product owners about progressive enhancement of JavaScript components, the answer I get back is along the lines of "we don't care about that" or "we don't have the time". Sometimes in conversations with other developers too. I think this change will contribute to an increase in that attitude. Progressively enhancing a website enables you to still deliver a whizz-bang, fancy-pants UI but ensure that it degrades to a sane text document when viewed in, say, lynx [1]. And it doesn't mean doubling the development time of every feature, which I often hear cited as an argument against. Often it can involve providing a very cut-down equivalent that takes relatively little time to build. Should we care about people that turn off JavaScript or use a non-JavaScript browser enough to write code for them? Given that the web is an open, standards-based platform, I think we should. [1] http://lynx.browser.org/ http://lynx.browser.org/
- pacifika 13y ago
  Shouldn't progressive enhancement be part of best practices, rather than a billable feature on the invoice? Or in other words, used by default.
  - philbo 13y ago
    Absolutely! But I still find myself having to make the case for it, when others are looking for ways to cut corners.
- mikeratcliffe 13y ago
  Which is exactly why we added the disable JS button to Firefox developer tools options. It simply disables it for the current tab until the tab is closed.
- Isofarro 13y ago
  > So many times when speaking to employers/product owners about progressive enhancement of JavaScript components, the answer I get back is along the lines of "we don't care about that" or "we don't have the time" Stop talking. Start doing instead. Employers and product owners are hiring you for your skills, so use them. Don't ask permission to follow best practice, just do. You are more than a code monkey. Do your employers really not care if a third party outside of their control decide to do something to affect the availability of their site? Do your employers control, audit and manage every single byte that gets delivered as part of their website? For those they don't completely and accurately manage and control, how do they absolutely ensure that every byte that needs to be delivered arrives correctly and is interpreted correctly in their users browser? How do they remove the risk of all those server hops between their web server and the customer's browser? How do they control that? The Web cannot be controlled or managed in this way. There are simply too many factors outside of a website owners control that affect how their site is perceived by customers. Without pragmatic approaches it's either an all-or-completely-broken situation, or when a site is built properly with progressive enhancement, a slight degradation of usability that customers don't really notice - because the core experience just works. https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/making-software/progressive-enhancement.html https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/making-software/progressiv... Want a good data point? How about a couple that decided rather vocally that progressive enhancement is dead. $100,000 spent on a bootstrapped application, and then this astonishing comment: http://unicornfree.com/2013/why-we-shut-down-charm-on-the-eve-of-public-launch-at-48kyear-and-growing#comment-1248 http://unicornfree.com/2013/why-we-shut-down-charm-on-the-ev... -- read the third paragraph of that comment. Sometimes, it's an expensive lesson to learn.
frontsideair 13y ago
I'm surprised no one has posted this xkcd strip yet. http://xkcd.com/1172/ http://xkcd.com/1172/
- frontsideair 13y ago
  Oh, and I didn't post this to bash the sincere concern about discoverable options. They could disable JS, and they still can, using an extension or going through a menu which clearly states that those configurations may break the 99% of the web. Every change is prone to break someone's workflow. But if there is a good enough alternative and if the change is better for everyone, I think that should be left alone. If there was no way to disable JS after this update, I'd be pretty mad as well. But having an option deep enough to keep away from unsuspecting eyes is only sane.
DigitalSea 13y ago
It makes sense to me. You can't even do Internet banking these days without needing Javascript enabled and to disable it you'll always have the plethora of addons that allow you to disable Javascript anyway. I think this is a welcome removal from Firefox, it's 2013 not 1925, Javascript is everywhere.
pschastain 13y ago
I can't stand engineers who assume that they know better than those who use their products. Not just hiding the ability to easily disable javascript, but RE-ENABLING IT AGAIST THE USERS EXPRESSED DESIRE via an update - seriously, your head is so far up your ass you'd have to shit twice just to see daylight.
leoc 13y ago
Look on the bright side. At least we'll never, ever have to hear about the Principle of Least Power again from Mozilla/HTML5 advocates lionising the "Open Web" against smartphone apps, Native Client or what have you.
dangayle 13y ago
I commented on this elsewhere, but to all the people who assume that developers can just build websites and assume that JS is enabled, please Google "Section 508". FWIW, I don't think we should avoid educating users. Pandering to the dumbest common denominator only makes dumb things in the long run.
protomyth 13y ago
At this point, I'm fine with disabling options if the program is sufficiently scriptable / programmable to allow someone to write a plugin to duplicate the "turn off" behavior. For browsers, we seem to be in a plugin replaces options universe. If a browser plugin cannot duplicate the behavior, then the browser needs to be changed to allow it or the option needs to stay.
philliphaydon 13y ago
WOOOOHOOOO Best knews I've heard for Firefox! Now if only every other browser would do it.
marco-fiset 13y ago
The thing is that non-expert users generally leave javascript on, because they don't even know what it is, let alone disabling it.
rocky1138 13y ago
The title isn't entirely accurate: it's been moved not removed.
ksec 13y ago
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.
drdaeman 13y ago
Not surprised. Mozilla, being an important entity in JavaScript ecosystem, obviously wouldn't disapprove web developers willing to shove JS down everyone's throat.
mattbeck 13y ago
It's about time.
SkyMarshal 13y ago
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 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.
wprl 13y ago
Good!
joeheyming 13y ago
Maybe Firefox can replace it with a don't tender html checkbox </sarcasm>

445 points by joallard 13y ago

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!

bpatrianakos 13y ago
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 works" type experiences so rather than fight the tide Mozilla is going with it. Plus, apart from security concerns which can be dealt with other ways, JavaScript engines are now capable of running multiple web apps in many tabs simultaneously without being noticed. Wasn't performance one of the primary reasons for having this option back in the day? Now its not an issue. Going forward we might not see a disable js button and think it just as normal as not seeing an option to disable CSS or even html. It's kind of a non-optional piece of the web now.
- Isofarro 13y ago
  > 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/DisablingJavaScriptAskingTheWrongQuestion 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/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/05/google_opendns_clash...
exodust 13y ago
Completely agree. Non technical users generally won't find the option to disable javascript, and won't understand it if they do find it. Enabled by default, users are better off using add-ons to disable or block JS where whitelists or better yet blacklists can be defined.
smokestack 13y ago
What's awful is that the update reportedly enables JS even if you had previously disabled it, though I doubt this was intentional.
- JadeNB 13y ago
  Why do you think it was unintentional? It's specifically mentioned in the "Checkboxes that kill" blogpost, so they're hardly unaware of it. (I agree that the changing of existing settings is the offensive part.)

srikarg 13y ago

That's a good move to make considering the numerous JavaScript-dependent web applications present today!

swiftin 13y ago

Why is taking away features "in" now?

nwh 13y ago
I'll bite. Due to the names Java and JavaScript being so similar, users get confused when their technically-minded friend recommends that they disable Java in their browser. Somewhat like ham and hamster, with no prior knowledge the user has no idea that the technologies are entirely different. I've personally had to help a number of people out who have mistakenly disabled JavaScript. That was the impression I got.
hayksaakian 13y ago
In theory, to make way for new ones and to avoid clutter in the UI.
CyberDroiD 13y ago
It's a symptom of not really understanding the web or the browser.
- hobs 13y ago
  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.
  - dthunt 13y ago
    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.
mehwoot 13y ago

CyberDroiD 13y ago

Javascript is not required to read articles on the web. It's optional. That's why "Reader" mode is so handy, just show me the article so I can read it. Sometimes I don't like waiting for my browser to struggle with poorly written JS. It sounds like a classic noobie mistake... "Why are users able to turn off Javascript?" "No idea." "Remove the feature!" If anyone says Javascript is not optional, they are trying to sell you something: probably web apps!

nwh 13y ago
> Javascript is not required to read articles on the web. Unfortunately, it very much is. Nearly every website on the internet is completely useless without JavaScript. I visited a large number of links from the HN front page, and many of them had broken navigation or images. You can't actually vote on HN itself either.
- Nav_Panel 13y ago
  Hacker News sans voting is nowhere near completely useless. I strongly suspect that a majority of people who read HN don't even have accounts (and thus are unable to vote). And even if the posts do contain broken links/images, a fair amount of text is often still available; I think a site's textual content is often its most important feature (unless it's a site specifically geared toward images/interactive content). The "1% Rule"[0] grew out of this idea -- the hypothesis it poses is that 89% of the users of a given internet forum are strictly lurkers. HN has a more tech-oriented population than many forums, so I bet the differences between groups are less extreme, but I also bet that the overall trend still stands. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)
  - veemjeem 13y ago
    Right, but the change isn't targeting you, the hacker news reader. There's dozens of mom & pops out there who have no understanding how browsers work and when they disable javascript, they'll complain that firefox can't render pages as well as IE.

muyuu 13y ago

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/js-switch/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/js-switch/

grannyg00se 13y ago

The bug was resolved as invalid with no explanation. I hope that by the time this makes it to regular release the transition is handled better.

gkoberger 13y ago

Here's a very relevant blog post by Alex Limi of Mozilla: http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ 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 help with this — but it’s not something that we should ship to hundreds of millions of users. (EDIT: this is the relevant quote, but worth reading the whole article)

x0x0 13y ago
The other thing Alex posted is firefox really gives you no indication of why the internet looks weird and is breaking left and right. So you can disable js or images or ssl and unless you're lucky enough to know a programmer or IT person really have no guide to undoing whatever happened.
- x0x0 13y ago
  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 and creating a new profile. I don't like safari as a browser, but it's to apple's credit that they offer this simple option so I tell my mother / mother-in-law to just click reset if the internet is weird.
  - steve-howard 13y ago
    In firefox, go to "about:support", "reset firefox." Probably not exactly the same (and it's not exposed as easily) but it's there.
    - x0x0 13y ago

BoyWizard 13y ago

> This destroys a non-technical user's grasp of the differences between static HTML and programatically manipulated HTML. It hides the setting amidst hundreds of other obscure settings, and does not emphasize the extremely powerful tool that JavaScript is, and the fact that it is optional. Most 'non-technical users' don't have a clue about HTML, Javascipt, static features, etc. To them the internet consists of Facebook, Google and Youtube. Arguably users who want to disable Javascript could be classified as 'technical', at least enough to be able to Google either a) how to do it from within Firefox, or b) install a plugin such as NoScript to do it for them.

readme 13y ago
Right. Non-technical users do not think that way, at all. Javascript and HTML are implementation details of the website they are using. Even people who hire IT consultants tend not to understand these things much, although they might think they do. I can imagine most web developers who freelance have dealt with a complaint from a client who had mistakenly turned off JavaScript, at least once.
- btipling 13y ago
  Non-technical users do not even know what a browser is, much less anything about HTML or JavaScript.
  - Gormo 13y ago
    What exactly is a non-technical user? I read threads like this all the time: someone talks about "non-technical users" or "your grandma" or "pointy-haired bosses" or the like, and then goes to great length to discuss, in detail, the capacities or cognitive styles or knowledge base of members of these hypothetical categories. It all seems like a bunch of arbitrary assumptions.
    - smtddr 13y ago
      I don't know about anyone else's experience, but these assumptions are pretty dead-on in my own personal experience. Non-techies(my mom, or somebody who only uses home computers for email & turbo-tax and some super-locked-down PC at work) don't have a clue what/how it's doing what it does. The blue "E" on the desktop is the internet, sometimes it's even the whole computer when they say "My computer doesn't work". They most _definitely_ don't have a clue what HTML or javascript is, or what that blue "e" on their desktop is. That being said, not to come off as some arrogant know-it-all, I admit I know very little about how my car works. I just take to the dealer and do the suggested maintenance. I'm sure I'm paying more than I should somewhere but I don't care... however, I'm starting to think it's more dangerous not to know how a computer and the internet work than it is to not know how your car works.

aaron695 13y ago

> 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?

slaxman 13y ago
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 right step. Hackers will always find a way around it.
- dthunt 13y ago
  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.

Osmose 13y ago

Here's the bug where the option was removed: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851702 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/ 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 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=864249 And of course addons like NoScript or js-switch are available if you still want this in your UI: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/noscript/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/noscript/ and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/js-switch/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/js-switch/

mullingitover 13y ago
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.
- tracker1 13y ago
  Guessing you don't use facebook, twitter or any major webmail provider like 99.99% of the users online do. For over 99% of users this is a feature that shouldn't be visible.. for the other 0.0x% there is about:config ... I don't bitch about having to go into about:config to change my cache settings for when I am testing...
- zevyoura 13y ago
  You can blame the web at large for moving in a direction that assumes JS is enabled, but that doesn't make the UX better.
  - tracker1 13y ago
    One thing that surprised me a lot recently, is I started a rewrite of my personal website using Bootstrap as a base, where the old one used jQueryUI... iirc, I included the kitchen sink in the old version.. however, the new one came in a bit heavier on the download/overhead... even with a better min/merge plan. I can say the new version I am working on looks better, and is actually usable on a phone, just the same, I am not sure I'd like to see the UX on a bandwidth constrained mobile connection.. it's still well under 1MB total, but it seems that we should be working towards being under 100K for an initial load, and given all the targets for different browsers, and work arounds, and libraries, tools etc.. I just don't know where we are going. We have more target browsers and size constraints than ever, and it's more complicated than ever. I don't miss the V4 browser wars (IE4/NN4) but it seems that targeting a 700px wide or 960px wide site was way easier than the rules today, mobile first or not.

kondro 13y ago

I can't remember the last time I wrote an application that didn't rely on Javascript for even parts of its basic functionality. I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS enabled and the average user definitely would never turn it off except in error, causing them to think the browser is broken. Every single common-use browser on the Internet supports Javascript, there is no reason to assume it is not there as a developer.

straight_talk 13y ago
>> I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS enabled Security, performance, JS ads ... >> Every single common-use browser on the Internet supports Javascript My company provides a web based app to Fortune 500 banks, around 15% of the browsers we see have JS disabled.
- dbaupp 13y ago
  > around 15% of the browsers we see have JS disabled How many are bots/scrapers?
- kondro 13y ago
  15% of browsers? I don't believe it. This has definitely not been my experience. You must be counting scrapers/bots in this total. Security? The browser sandboxes everything.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - andor 13y ago
    Some people have valuable data inside their browsers. Javascript code can access this data. Also, browsers aren't bug-free, and enabling Javascript significantly increases the attack surface.
    - tokenizerrr 13y ago

overgard 13y ago

I'm surprised that checkbox hung around as long as it did. I imagine only maybe .001% of browser users actually really cared enough to turn that off, and if they did, they were probably already running something like NoScript since toggling it in the preferences all the time is way too blunt an instrument anyway.

SmokyBorbon 13y ago

Firefox 2002-2013

holalala 13y ago

Looks like the reason behind the move is that preferences UI has become incomprehensible ... which actually doesn't have anything to do with javascript. Perhaps a move towards Eclipse-like preferences would be a wiser choice?

kijin 13y ago

I supppose too many people accidentally disabled Javascript in recent months while trying to disable Java. As long as there's an about:config option that does the same thing, I don't think it's a bad move to remove that option from view. I will, however, miss the "Advanced" button next to the "Enable JavaScript" checkbox (if that button is going to go away, too, which the article isn't clear about). I use those Advanced options all the time to prevent websites from messing with my neatly tiled windows and trying to prevent me from using the right mouse button. Here in South Korea, the majority of blogs and forums have right-click protection enabled (and refuse to display any content if you disable Javascript altogether) due to ridiculous defaults in popular platforms, and every other website feels like they have the right to go full-screen. Firefox is the only thing that makes this stupid trend bearable. I guess I'll have to go and check whether NoScript has a similar option.

thristian 13y ago
I can confirm the "Advanced" button is gone. At least for the moment, the dom.disable_window_move_resize and dom.event.contextmenu.enabled preferences still exist in about:config, though.
- 51Cards 13y ago
  This is what will be the major issue for me. I toggle the right click override option on and off on a very regular basis.
  - A321 13y ago
    Shift + right click is the shortcut to always go to the browser context menu.. No need to toggle preferences.
    - Livven 13y ago
      Thank you. I'm not familiar with JavaScript but would it be possible for websites to block shift+right click as well? EDIT: Per this comment [1] holding shift causes Firefox to bypass event handlers, so hopefully that wouldn't be possible. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968919

Shank 13y ago

There was a talk (or podcast?) that discussed how cluttered with vestigial options Firefox and other browsers are. One of the examples was JS - if you turn it off entirely it makes the entire web seemingly broken. As long as the option is there for power users, this is the kind of thing that removing will probably cause less headaches for people in the long term.

duskwuff 13y ago
You're probably thinking of "Checkboxes That Kill": http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ - and I believe it's what inspired Firefox to remove the option.
- Shank 13y ago
  That's exactly what it is. Thanks!

gnosis 13y ago

A few months ago, I switched to using w3m inside emacs as my primary browser. w3m is not capable of handling Javascript at all. And you know what, for 90% of the websites I visit, it doesn't matter. They function fine and look fine without Javascript. And if w3m could manage to make most websites look fine without Javascript, so could Firefox -- if its developers cared. As for non-technical users -- they're probably not going to be opening Firefox's Preferences dialog in the first place. And if they do, they probably aren't going to start randomly checking and unchecking stuff to see what it does. That's something an adventurous geek might try, but certainly not your typical non-technical user. If Firefox developers wanted to additionally protect the average user from this dangerous button, they could have simply stuck it in the Advanced tab of the Preferences dialog, or added a scary warning about being doubly sure that the user knows what he's doing (like they do with about:config). That said, I'm happy to use NoScript for this functionality anyway, as it's far more flexible than a blanket "turn off Javascript everywhere with no exceptions" button.

jlgreco 13y ago
What is your take on w3m vs elinks?
- gnosis 13y ago
  I really haven't used it much, except as my default external HTML->Text converter (via wget + HTML::FormatText::Elinks), of which it does a good job. Unfortunately, its main weakness is that (as far as I know) it's not integrated in to emacs as w3m is. If it was, I'd probably look to it as a serious contender. But since it's not, I'm afraid I'm stuck with w3m -- for better or for worse. (Right now, it's for better, as I'm quite satisfied with w3m -- except for my occasional Javascript needs, for which I fall back to Firefox, Opera, or Chromium).
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Hmm, gotcha. I like elinks for it's pretty solid mouse/256color support in in terminal emulators but I haven't used it "from" other programs like emacs (just tmux). In that capacity, elinks is my primary browser for reading documentation (since I usually associate documentation with particular tmux sessions and leave it open for weeks or months on end). w3m has image support in some terminals though, which fascinates me. I feel like I should probably investigate that some more.

holalala 13y ago

disabling javascript is the most effective method against XSS, so it's really bad choice to not be able to do it simply. not that firefox would be that security-minded in other areas regarding to javascript (XSS + form autofill without SecureLogin addon = fun & profit for hackers)

camus 13y ago

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 javascript on, All you see is a blank page. And by the way, there is a tag called noscript , but it seems webdesigners that only think about demonstrating their "html5" talents dont know their basics. Javascript is the new flash. Stupid cheesy animations , heavy pages , memory leaks that kill your browser, javascript intros that you cant skip ,broken parallax scrolling , slow scrollbars so it feels like you are on ipad , it will be worse than flash when designers start abusing Adobe Edge on all their websites. So long firefox...

gkoberger 13y ago
Try an extension? Power users aren't the target market for this decision, and that's why add-ons exist.
gnosis 13y ago
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 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! Geez. The web has become a gigantic spyware advertising network, and Javascript, Flash, and related garbage are some of the main enablers of it. </rant>
- slaxman 13y ago
  May be that works for you. But a significant number of web developers are moving on JS frameworks for web development such Angular, Meteor, Node, etc. Most sites built on these frameworks will break is javascript is disabled. As an end user, that is the worst user experience you can ask for.

alister 13y ago

Wow, how times change. The smart advice was to never use Javascript. (Years ago pg even wrote, "I would not even use Javascript, if I were you. Most of the Javascript I see on the Web isn't necessary, and much of it breaks." ) Javascript has gone from horribly flaky -> occasionally useful -> necessary -> mandatory.

tracker1 13y ago
That's because more people are actually taking the time to understand the browser, dom, markup and language itself, instead of copy/pasting some poorly written image-swapping script. (God I've seen too many of those)... JS has been capable of doing some fairly impressive app-like functionality since the late 90's. I'd say NN4/IE4 was the beginning of that ability, despite dramatically different approaches. Today, browsers have far more in common (regarding js/dom) with each other (IE8+ too) than at any point pre-2005. And it is about damned time. I still think the likes of jQuery round out a ton of those rough edges, and it still disappoints me to see so many who hate JS because they want it to be (insert preferred language here). JS is, and has been my favorite language for a very long time.
Dylan16807 13y ago
You imply that javascript stopped being flaky. I find that it's often flakiest on sites where it's mandatory.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

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.

asnyder 13y ago
Why do you think Opera has gone the way of the dodo? It's an excellent browser, by far the best browser in my opinion. Furthermore, they're changing their renderer to webkit which will ensure no more Opera incompatibility. If anything, Opera just keeps getting better.
- dmpk2k 13y ago
  The newest version of Opera strips away most of the tools power users like. It's one step away from Chrome's UI. They'll probably add most of it back, but it'll take a long time.
  - asnyder 13y ago
    I thought Opera Next is just a beta for testing the renderer. I don't think they consider it the new version of Opera yet, as it doesn't come up as a new version. I'm sure they wouldn't be so stupid to remove all the nice new features they've recently added and that their loyal following rely on.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  I know it's the best, I am using it was we speak and have been doing so since 2000. The last time I tried it Opera Next after the switch to blink, I couldn't install it -- so I read the comments instead, and it sounded like a gazillion of features were missing. If those get all transferred, I am happy and you can strike that comment. But if they only transfer the shiny stuff "most people need", I'd love to move on, just because all of this is sad and I don't wanna see it anymore. Don't get me wrong, I always wished Opera mainstream success. But I think there is also something to be said for niches, and the desire to appease the existing average just because the balance book says that's the best, needs to be called out on sight. Imagine authors only writing books 98% of the people agreed with or cared about. We'd still be in caves with that attitude. I know making tools isn't exactly the same, but it's also not totally different, IMHO. We need to aim higher than were we are. Every sports fan knows more and more complicated facts than even using all features of Opera would require. Riding a bicycle, much less driving a car, is more complicated than being aware of what option you just clicked - ffs! If even Firefox can't help but caving in like that, I simply won't dare to hope Opera does better, until I actually see that happening. I am sorry for ranting, this topic is a huge pet peeve of me. Like when Apple talked about how folder hierarchies are "too complicated", gah. I know I'm expecting too much of people, but I really would rather err on the side of that, than on the side of expecting too little, and then getting exactly that.

bdcravens 13y ago

Is it just me, or do most of the commenters here seem to believe that it's no longer possible to disable JavaScript, as opposed to it simply being removed from the UI?

ilaksh 13y ago

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 developers who really want the web to just be a bunch of static HTML are actually inhibiting that vision of a web platform. Because if disabling JavaScript were to become popular, that takes away that capability of web browsers to run applications. The conversation would go from something like "we can use JavaScript and this application will run for anyone who has a new version of Firefox, Chrome, or IE10/11, or Safari" to "we can deploy our application to the latest browsers, but we will have to first present a screen asking users to enable JavaScript on our site" or something along those lines. It goes from being a ubiquitous cross-platform solution to one that will only run for people who like JavaScript. JavaScript in the browser is by far the best option we have now and in the foreseeable future for easily deploying applications across different types of operating systems and even devices. Its amazing to me how many people don't appreciate that goal or really take it into account.

zanny 13y ago
I just want to mention that the order of operations here was that the web took the world by storm overnight and application developers said "there is a turning complete language in the standard, lets use it for programs rather than document scripting". It didn't start out as lets make an application platform that can be accessed via url, it was make a document format (html) and share them over a network protocol (http) and provide scripting with javascript, and when everyone and their moms PC had that, developers started saying "can't we make that into a full blown application platform?" (besides failed experiments like java plugins or flash as an application framework) I really wish we had just let html be documents and made a real remote-access application framework to work along side it, rather than having your program be 2 - 3 tags of html and 5MB of js. I'd much rather be sharing a qml application than an html5 one, because the latter was ground up designed to be a full featured interactive graphical interface program. That would actually be neat, if browser engines included a qml parser and could load qml files as programs in the browser window frame. It is just extended javascript after all.

Ankaios 13y ago

If Firefox's developers are worried about people not understanding why a page doesn't work, another potential solution would be to provide users with some feedback. For instance, if Javascript is disabled but present in a page, perhaps show a (simplified?) small debugger box showing the next lines of Javascript which would have been executed and some sort of an obvious Run / Play button to start the script. I'd prefer if browsers treated the Web as less of a black box, and if they erred more toward helping users understand the world they are exploring.

dave1010uk 13y ago
This is a great idea, but should probably be simpler for the average user. Eg "You have JS off, which will break some websites. Click here to turn it on. The simple option you used in the past to toggle this has gone. Click here to find out how to toggle it now"

sampk 13y ago

Classic Brendan Eich.

dmiladinov 13y ago

As long as you can still disable JS via about:config or NoScript, this is hardly worrisome.

aerolite 13y ago

Stop disabling Javascript, you Luddite. The entire web depends on it.

saejox 13y ago

There are more people who disable JS unintentionally than those who do it intentionally. This is a good move. Option still exists in about:config.

ck2 13y ago

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.

PommeDeTerre 13y ago
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 I install Firefox. They did this with the status bar, and it hurt Firefox's usability. Now many of us have to waste time installing extensions to restore this core functionality. This case may be even worse, because it's not a one-time fix. Now we'll have to go digging through about:config options each time we want to disable JavaScript, or wait until Firefox 24 so we can disable JavaScript through the developer tools. Many of us are just plain getting fed up with Mozilla's bad decisions, and very justifiably so.
- mhaymo 13y ago
  - 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 dislike change, and I'd advise you to simply turn off automatic updates. The rest of us are happy for improvements to be made.
  - PommeDeTerre 13y ago
    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.

dewiz 13y ago

many web sites don't work without cookies either, specifically the authentication. if the functionality of "modern" sites is the only rationale, it is simply a wrong decision by Mozilla.

tomjen3 13y ago
You can't make authentication to work safely without cookies because HTTP isn't stateful.

bad_user 13y ago

Firefox is the most customizable browser available. It's about time they cleaned-up their Preferences panel and leave that stuff for extensions to tackle. I personally never disabled Javascript from the Preferences panel because I never find anything in that panel. To disable Javascript, I use the Web Developer toolbar, which is much more convenient, although not convenient enough - since one might want to enable/disable Javascript automatically on a domain basis, which is why this should be best handled by extensions that are free to innovate the UI. And while we are at it, I wish Firefox would add a search box in that Preferences panel. Its usefulness has been demonstrated in Chrome's Settings and Windows' Control Panel. Also, Firefox rocks and I'm so happy to see it improve.

hnha 13y ago
Have you tried opera (not the latest Chrome-bastard but earlier versions)? I'd challenge your statement, opera seems much more customizable to me.
- bad_user 13y ago
  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.
  - lmm 13y ago
    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)?
    - bad_user 13y ago
      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 rather XUL+XPCOM, abstracting over the various native toolkits: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XUL https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XUL Only Firefox on Linux uses GTK. Even on Linux, there have been previous attempts at supporting Qt as the backend for KDE, but all failed because of the easiness with which you can make GTK look like whatever KDE theme you've got selected - not perfect, but the flaws where not enough to gather interest in further development. There's even XULRunner, for easily building and packaging XUL+XPCOM standalone apps: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/XULRunner https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/XULRunner This isn't to say that XUL/Gekko are perfect as their complexity was often the subject of criticism, which is why Mozilla replaced XUL completely with HTML5 in Firefox OS and will probably do so in future Firefox versions - as they are also working on Servo, a next-gen rendering engine that doesn't do XUL anymore: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/research/projects/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/research/projects/ Imagine a browser who's every facet and functionality is customizable by HTML5/Javascript extensions that you can install with one click. That's what Firefox already is - the Emacs of browsers. For example, if my Firebug example wasn't enough, when Chrome was released, many people loved the light download progress functionality that wasn't opening an annoying modal window. Pretty soon an extension called the Download Statusbar happened: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/download-statusbar/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/download-stat...

ID_10T 13y ago

This will obviously receive a lot of hate from the tech community. Fortunately they are the 1%. For everyone else in the world, this is a welcomed change. Most people don't even know what JavaScript is.

gcb0 13y ago

Didn't gnome3 taught us a valuable lesson on dumbing things down on the expectation that users are dumb/can't read?

readme 13y ago
I hope you realize that the users of Gnome and other X11 desktops have already passed a serious level of technical literacy. In the event they haven't, it's because they're the direct family member of some techie.

ID_10T 13y ago

As a Firefox user, I feel like most of the people complaining are Chrome users just looking to pick a fight. Hey, Chrome folks, Firefox has this great thing called NoScript. I realize Chrome doesn't have that, so you have to manually disable/enable JavaScript. We just use NoScript, as we have for years, which does a lot more. Firefox users don't rely on the "Disable JavaScript" option, nor ever did. This is a nonissue, but continue to make it more than it is.

wooptoo 13y ago

About time. JS is an integral part of the web experience.

crististm 13y ago

That spencer guy really sounds like a smartass; I mean, we're too stupid to be around him and not seeing the light that shines through his ass; vent off

Fuxy 13y ago

Well JS can be disabled with the help of plugins however I find it ominous that you have to be an expert user/programmer to disabled javascript. There are a lot of websites out there that use javascript for less than reputable purposes so not being able to disable it when you know you might run into them is insecure. Like say using tor where having JS enabled is like asking to be tracked. I know disabling JS is not an option on the modern web but then ship with something like noscript instead don't just leave users exposed. This is not a feature that can just be removed it needs to be replaced instead.

philbo 13y ago

The following rant is somewhat tangential but, as a front-end developer that takes pride in progressively enhancing websites I work on, I think this is a shame for a different reason. So many times when speaking to employers/product owners about progressive enhancement of JavaScript components, the answer I get back is along the lines of "we don't care about that" or "we don't have the time". Sometimes in conversations with other developers too. I think this change will contribute to an increase in that attitude. Progressively enhancing a website enables you to still deliver a whizz-bang, fancy-pants UI but ensure that it degrades to a sane text document when viewed in, say, lynx [1]. And it doesn't mean doubling the development time of every feature, which I often hear cited as an argument against. Often it can involve providing a very cut-down equivalent that takes relatively little time to build. Should we care about people that turn off JavaScript or use a non-JavaScript browser enough to write code for them? Given that the web is an open, standards-based platform, I think we should. [1] http://lynx.browser.org/ http://lynx.browser.org/

pacifika 13y ago
Shouldn't progressive enhancement be part of best practices, rather than a billable feature on the invoice? Or in other words, used by default.
- philbo 13y ago
  Absolutely! But I still find myself having to make the case for it, when others are looking for ways to cut corners.
mikeratcliffe 13y ago
Which is exactly why we added the disable JS button to Firefox developer tools options. It simply disables it for the current tab until the tab is closed.
Isofarro 13y ago
> So many times when speaking to employers/product owners about progressive enhancement of JavaScript components, the answer I get back is along the lines of "we don't care about that" or "we don't have the time" Stop talking. Start doing instead. Employers and product owners are hiring you for your skills, so use them. Don't ask permission to follow best practice, just do. You are more than a code monkey. Do your employers really not care if a third party outside of their control decide to do something to affect the availability of their site? Do your employers control, audit and manage every single byte that gets delivered as part of their website? For those they don't completely and accurately manage and control, how do they absolutely ensure that every byte that needs to be delivered arrives correctly and is interpreted correctly in their users browser? How do they remove the risk of all those server hops between their web server and the customer's browser? How do they control that? The Web cannot be controlled or managed in this way. There are simply too many factors outside of a website owners control that affect how their site is perceived by customers. Without pragmatic approaches it's either an all-or-completely-broken situation, or when a site is built properly with progressive enhancement, a slight degradation of usability that customers don't really notice - because the core experience just works. https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/making-software/progressive-enhancement.html https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/making-software/progressiv... Want a good data point? How about a couple that decided rather vocally that progressive enhancement is dead. $100,000 spent on a bootstrapped application, and then this astonishing comment: http://unicornfree.com/2013/why-we-shut-down-charm-on-the-eve-of-public-launch-at-48kyear-and-growing#comment-1248 http://unicornfree.com/2013/why-we-shut-down-charm-on-the-ev... -- read the third paragraph of that comment. Sometimes, it's an expensive lesson to learn.

frontsideair 13y ago

I'm surprised no one has posted this xkcd strip yet. http://xkcd.com/1172/ http://xkcd.com/1172/

frontsideair 13y ago
Oh, and I didn't post this to bash the sincere concern about discoverable options. They could disable JS, and they still can, using an extension or going through a menu which clearly states that those configurations may break the 99% of the web. Every change is prone to break someone's workflow. But if there is a good enough alternative and if the change is better for everyone, I think that should be left alone. If there was no way to disable JS after this update, I'd be pretty mad as well. But having an option deep enough to keep away from unsuspecting eyes is only sane.

DigitalSea 13y ago

It makes sense to me. You can't even do Internet banking these days without needing Javascript enabled and to disable it you'll always have the plethora of addons that allow you to disable Javascript anyway. I think this is a welcome removal from Firefox, it's 2013 not 1925, Javascript is everywhere.

pschastain 13y ago

I can't stand engineers who assume that they know better than those who use their products. Not just hiding the ability to easily disable javascript, but RE-ENABLING IT AGAIST THE USERS EXPRESSED DESIRE via an update - seriously, your head is so far up your ass you'd have to shit twice just to see daylight.

leoc 13y ago

Look on the bright side. At least we'll never, ever have to hear about the Principle of Least Power again from Mozilla/HTML5 advocates lionising the "Open Web" against smartphone apps, Native Client or what have you.

dangayle 13y ago

I commented on this elsewhere, but to all the people who assume that developers can just build websites and assume that JS is enabled, please Google "Section 508". FWIW, I don't think we should avoid educating users. Pandering to the dumbest common denominator only makes dumb things in the long run.

protomyth 13y ago

At this point, I'm fine with disabling options if the program is sufficiently scriptable / programmable to allow someone to write a plugin to duplicate the "turn off" behavior. For browsers, we seem to be in a plugin replaces options universe. If a browser plugin cannot duplicate the behavior, then the browser needs to be changed to allow it or the option needs to stay.

philliphaydon 13y ago

WOOOOHOOOO Best knews I've heard for Firefox! Now if only every other browser would do it.

marco-fiset 13y ago

The thing is that non-expert users generally leave javascript on, because they don't even know what it is, let alone disabling it.

rocky1138 13y ago

The title isn't entirely accurate: it's been moved not removed.

ksec 13y ago

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.

drdaeman 13y ago

Not surprised. Mozilla, being an important entity in JavaScript ecosystem, obviously wouldn't disapprove web developers willing to shove JS down everyone's throat.

mattbeck 13y ago

It's about time.

SkyMarshal 13y ago

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 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.

wprl 13y ago

Good!

joeheyming 13y ago

Maybe Firefox can replace it with a don't tender html checkbox </sarcasm>