6 ms·

(This is a reply to a nested comment, but I felt it was important enough to be top-level): > and pretending that a site is "broken" if it doesn't work for a ha

(This is a reply to a nested comment, but I felt it was important enough to be top-level): > and pretending that a site is "broken" if it doesn't work for a handful of geeks is being willfully obtuse. This is the common rallying cry of the 'use-JS-for-everything' camp. The most important reason a user should have an internet-wide blacklist on JS as the default is because the default should NOT be to allow any website ever to run arbitrary scripts on a user's machine. That's like always running as root while on a development server. No, wait - that's like having random people from the street have root on your server for arbitrary amounts of time, and all you can do is watch. Principle of least privilege certainly applies to the web as well. Let's not even mention how an open and private web is hindered by orders of magnitude from Google analytics and Facebook like buttons tracking you across entirely different spectra of websites simply because the sites you're visiting has them embedded. --- EDIT: Can the downvoters please reply with constructive criticism.

TheAceOfHearts 12y ago
I think it's worth noting the difference between a website and an application. I like it when docs, news sites, blogs, etc. work without JavaScript. I consider it very important that my own blog work without JS. If I'm making a game that's not turn-based, going JS-free is literally impossible. For a lot of applications you could in theory make a JS-free version, but it would require making a COMPLETELY separate implementation of the application, and for a lot of people that's just not justifiable. Most people simply don't have the time and resources to achieve this, so obviously they'll favor the larger chunk of users. For example, let's say I want to make an image editor. I can imagine some ways in which I could possibly implement certain functionality without any JS, but the experience would be ABYSMAL. Seriously, consider implementing even a MICROSCOPIC subset of the functionality provided by Photoshop with JUST server-side rendering.
- chrisdotcode 12y ago
  Word. Blacklist-all-by-default should be the strategy, not haphazard whitelist. Very similar to how you're asked if you want to share your location/microphone/etc with a website - JavaScript should likewise be compartmentalized based on functionality and necessary access permissions should be required of the user on a per-site basis first.

TheAceOfHearts 12y ago

I think it's worth noting the difference between a website and an application. I like it when docs, news sites, blogs, etc. work without JavaScript. I consider it very important that my own blog work without JS. If I'm making a game that's not turn-based, going JS-free is literally impossible. For a lot of applications you could in theory make a JS-free version, but it would require making a COMPLETELY separate implementation of the application, and for a lot of people that's just not justifiable. Most people simply don't have the time and resources to achieve this, so obviously they'll favor the larger chunk of users. For example, let's say I want to make an image editor. I can imagine some ways in which I could possibly implement certain functionality without any JS, but the experience would be ABYSMAL. Seriously, consider implementing even a MICROSCOPIC subset of the functionality provided by Photoshop with JUST server-side rendering.

chrisdotcode 12y ago
Word. Blacklist-all-by-default should be the strategy, not haphazard whitelist. Very similar to how you're asked if you want to share your location/microphone/etc with a website - JavaScript should likewise be compartmentalized based on functionality and necessary access permissions should be required of the user on a per-site basis first.