[eiji]

The follow-up question is "Why users disable JS?".

How many do it unintentional because they think JS is Java(applets ...), or the browser does not support it.

I'm also wondering how many people change the advanced JS settings in the browser (do browser other than Firefox even support them?).

I'm one of those 2% for different reasons(open for discussion): - it blocks 90% of ads, because most banners are JS driven - I consider JS as a privacy and security vulnerability - disabled JS saves bandwidth

It never takes more than 2 seconds to get an idea if a page does work without JS, and another 2 seconds to decide if it is worth it to enable JS.

[kd0amg]

I'm one of those 2% for different reasons(open for discussion): - it blocks 90% of ads, because most banners are JS driven ... disabled JS saves bandwidth

These are my usual reasons. I've run into a lot of sites with orders of magnitude more ads, fluff, formatting scripts, etc. than they have content (e.g. thereifixedit and related sites typically take me a full minute to load with JavaScript and often under a second without). I don't make much effort to block ads that don't make the page load much slower.

[jcromartie]

I'd reckon that most of them are FOSS weenies and/or security paranoid. At least, that's the common thread among my peers who disable JS as a matter of principle. They are proud of it, and they are happy to find a reason (like requiring JS) to snub your web app.

Then there are the NoScript people, who are willing to whitelist your site to allow JS if they think there is value in it. These people skew the numbers but are pretty reasonable when it comes to turning JS on.

[Natsu]

I'm one of those NoScript users. Most sites get temporary permissions if they actually need them for something I want to do, trusted sites get whitelisted if I visit them often enough.

Pretty much all of the attacks against Mozilla that might have actually affected me have been mitigated to some extent by NoScript, so it's pretty useful.

[prodigal_erik]

Paranoid is assuming attackers are out to get you. I just assume attackers are abusing automation and out to get everyone, because we have already seen that happen several times, and there's no reason to believe javascript sandboxes are suddenly flawless despite their disappointing history.

I also have scripting off because I tend to be curious about the diligence and talent of the authors at a site.

[DjDarkman]

FFS, use Adblock You are so fuckin wrong, JS is not a security vulnerability it's a programing language.

Wikipedia: JavaScript is an implementation of the ECMAScript language standard and is typically used to enable programmatic access to computational objects within a host environment.

If you want real privacy, then why not just disable cookies? ohhh your login won't work... well then just disable your internet connection then.

Disabling JS wastes bandwidth because you can't do partial page replacements. OMG so much stupidity.

Edit: So many downvoting trolls. Edit #2: Even more trolls who can't even leave a reply.

[carussell]

Your post was poorly reasoned, and quoting Wikipedia was frivolous. Furthermore, it was written in a way that's grating for many people, regardless of your (poorly reasoned) points, because it

a) reinforces the notion that you didn't care enough about your message to spend 15 seconds longer on it to write it properly, a feeling which already existed in readers' minds because of the presence of your (poorly reasoned) points, and

b) requires readers to spend longer parsing your comment before being able to comprehend the (poorly reasoned) points you were attempting to make.

[DjDarkman]

The comment I was replying to was even more poorly reasoned. And I actually written a larger post regarding this.