First of all, he was commenting about this page not displaying ANY content at all. At the very least there should be a noscript tag to tell the user to enable JS.
Second, I whitelist sites for javascript. There's nothing absurd about that. Honestly, I can't believe people run any and all JS on every random page they land on.
> First of all, he was commenting about this page not displaying ANY content at all. At the very least there should be a noscript tag to tell the user to enable JS.
For most sites that sounds like a good idea, but this is a Javascript project. The number of people interested in a Javscript framework that don't have Javascript enabled and are still befuddled when things don't work correctly must be vanishingly small.
> For most sites that sounds like a good idea, but this is a Javascript project.
Isn't that actually the opposite argument? If you are an expert in that field, you should understand how to degrade gracefully. Besides, you might not know that the project is about javascript until you read the (blank) page.
JavaScript is like the electricity of the web. If you disable it, it's like walking around the real world with an "emp field", sure some things will still work, but it's kind of dumb to expect the modern technologies to work without their main food source.
The technologies have evolved... Why are you trying to keep us in the stone age? Or why do you expect backwards compatibility?
the http protocol is the electricity of the web , not javascript. Javascript is more like the home automation of the web and you sure can live without it. IT is stupid to offer 0 content when javascript is turned off. Some people might check the content on tablets,phones or devices that dont have javascript turned on by default.
> Not supporting Javascript is not a design goal of the HTML5 project.
Which is why the HTML5 spec explicitly mentions disabling scripting?
"6.1.2 Enabling and disabling scripting
Scripting is enabled in a browsing context when all of the following conditions are true:
The user agent supports scripting.
The user has not disabled scripting for this browsing context at this time. (User agents may provide users with the option to disable scripting globally, or in a finer-grained manner, e.g. on a per-origin basis.)
The browsing context's active document's active sandboxing flag set does not have its sandboxed scripts browsing context flag set.
"
You could also block all images and CSS; that would make for a really terrible web experience though. Why limit yourself intentionally? As a web developer I'm not going to accommodate for users that intentionally turn off features that we've been fighting for years to standardize on.
>You could also block all images and CSS; that would make for a really terrible web experience though.
The other day I was on a really spotty internet connection, lots and lots of packet loss. External CSS almost never loaded, images certainly never did. For some sites it was a pain, but for most it was bearable. Often it was an improvement, using a default font at a decent size right to the edge of my browser window. Lovely.
Of course, my browser always expected the extra crap to come down the wire, so it waited forever before actually displaying anything. If I wanted to read something in any reasonable amount of time I had to wait until the HTML was downloaded (i.e., when the title bar said something nice) then disconnect from the internet. This made my browser say, "Fuck it, let's try our best." Hitting "stop" resulted in a blank page...
I know I'm not the typical audience, but for me browsing with wget would have been a better experience.
I don't know. I think a lot of pages would be better with much less "design". You know, pages like HN where the text content is the most interesting part. Or most blogs.
Well, alrighty. I have no problem with you turning off CSS/images. But if you do, just please don't ask web developers to accommodate users like yourself. If you can disable those features, you also know how to re-enable them.