5 ms·

Completely white page with NoScript, please add a <noscript> tag

by arcameron 12y ago

of 12y ago
That's a good idea. Why would someone downvote this?
- yzzxy 12y ago
  Because it's silly to ask web developers to cater to a specific extension used by a marginal minority of people. Much better to use a more general method for when JS is unavailable. And people using noscript or similar tools (like myself) should know by now when a page fails to check that first.
  - of 12y ago
    But the comment applies to anyone who's not using JavaScript in their web browser. Although I like programming in JavaScript, there's many people I know that consider JavaScript itself to be a silly extension of what a web browser should do.
    - madeofpalk 12y ago
      many people I know !== many people The percentage of people that considering JavaScript "to be a silly extension of what a web browser" is so small that it would be a rounding error in most charts.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - allendoerfer 12y ago
        Pretty nihilistic argument as the same is true for everything else mentioned on HN.
    - jobposter1234 12y ago
      And many people, including those who made this website, consider Javascript to be an integral part of what a web browser should do. Would you complain about a free video game if it only worked on playstation, and you had only an xbox but still refused a free playstation?
      - Xorlev 12y ago
        But a noscript just tells someone that they are missing out on something. A "hey, disable noscript or enable JS so you can see the page." deal.
      - kephra 12y ago
        Hackers news work perfectly fine without JavaScript. JS should be an enhancement to improve UX, but not a doorstopper for search engines, web scrappers, and blind people.
        jekrb 12y ago
        Hacker News is a fairly simple site for this use case. It works. However I would not say that it is perfectly fine. Try upvoting with js disabled. The page has to do an entire refresh. That could be a doorstopper for people with limited data plans or with spotty network coverage.
    - lumpypua 12y ago
      2005: Yep. 2010: Ehh, JS is useful sometimes. 2015: Lol no.
      - Mahn 12y ago
        Funny, I'd put that in the exact opposite order. Back in the day there were taskbars, popups, visitor counters and what have you, JS was mostly an annoying gimmick. Today it's about actual site functionality, it's pretty fast and (generally) sandboxed.
        lumpypua 12y ago
        Derp, phrasing. I meant exactly that. :P "...JavaScript itself to be a silly extension" "lol no"
    - jekrb 12y ago
      Thinking of modern browsers as just document viewers is silly. They're built to be extremely capable javascript runtimes.
  - chicofarm 12y ago
    <noscript> is just general tag to detect when a browser doesn't have support for scripting. It is not just to detect the NoScript extension.
  - rosser 12y ago
    A <noscript> tag is the more general method.
  - GigabyteCoin 12y ago
    Not everybody knows they're using noscript. Like my friends when they borrow my laptop, for example.
kephra 12y ago
This page follows a typical JavaScript antipattern of not showing anything to search engines, web scrapers and people who block JavaScript. A noscript tag sould at least tell me, what the site offers when enabling JS, to give me a reasont to enable JS. And it takes ages to load on a normal DSL line. I dont want to know how slow this page is when browsing with a cell phone. I just checked. This page not only requires JavaScript, but also a Desktop environment. There is no drag and drop on my computer.

Completely white page with NoScript, please add a <noscript> tag

of 12y ago

That's a good idea. Why would someone downvote this?

yzzxy 12y ago
Because it's silly to ask web developers to cater to a specific extension used by a marginal minority of people. Much better to use a more general method for when JS is unavailable. And people using noscript or similar tools (like myself) should know by now when a page fails to check that first.
- of 12y ago
  But the comment applies to anyone who's not using JavaScript in their web browser. Although I like programming in JavaScript, there's many people I know that consider JavaScript itself to be a silly extension of what a web browser should do.
  - madeofpalk 12y ago
    many people I know !== many people The percentage of people that considering JavaScript "to be a silly extension of what a web browser" is so small that it would be a rounding error in most charts.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - allendoerfer 12y ago
      Pretty nihilistic argument as the same is true for everything else mentioned on HN.
  - jobposter1234 12y ago
    And many people, including those who made this website, consider Javascript to be an integral part of what a web browser should do. Would you complain about a free video game if it only worked on playstation, and you had only an xbox but still refused a free playstation?
    - Xorlev 12y ago
      But a noscript just tells someone that they are missing out on something. A "hey, disable noscript or enable JS so you can see the page." deal.
    - kephra 12y ago
      Hackers news work perfectly fine without JavaScript. JS should be an enhancement to improve UX, but not a doorstopper for search engines, web scrappers, and blind people.
      - jekrb 12y ago
        Hacker News is a fairly simple site for this use case. It works. However I would not say that it is perfectly fine. Try upvoting with js disabled. The page has to do an entire refresh. That could be a doorstopper for people with limited data plans or with spotty network coverage.
  - lumpypua 12y ago
    2005: Yep. 2010: Ehh, JS is useful sometimes. 2015: Lol no.
    - Mahn 12y ago
      Funny, I'd put that in the exact opposite order. Back in the day there were taskbars, popups, visitor counters and what have you, JS was mostly an annoying gimmick. Today it's about actual site functionality, it's pretty fast and (generally) sandboxed.
      - lumpypua 12y ago
        Derp, phrasing. I meant exactly that. :P "...JavaScript itself to be a silly extension" "lol no"
  - jekrb 12y ago
    Thinking of modern browsers as just document viewers is silly. They're built to be extremely capable javascript runtimes.
- chicofarm 12y ago
  <noscript> is just general tag to detect when a browser doesn't have support for scripting. It is not just to detect the NoScript extension.
- rosser 12y ago
  A <noscript> tag is the more general method.
- GigabyteCoin 12y ago
  Not everybody knows they're using noscript. Like my friends when they borrow my laptop, for example.

kephra 12y ago

This page follows a typical JavaScript antipattern of not showing anything to search engines, web scrapers and people who block JavaScript. A noscript tag sould at least tell me, what the site offers when enabling JS, to give me a reasont to enable JS. And it takes ages to load on a normal DSL line. I dont want to know how slow this page is when browsing with a cell phone. I just checked. This page not only requires JavaScript, but also a Desktop environment. There is no drag and drop on my computer.