[SquareWheel]

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.

[repsilat]

>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.

[e12e]

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.

[SquareWheel]

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.

[darkarmani]

> You could also block all images and CSS; that would make for a really terrible web experience though

Really? Blocking all images can really improve your web experience in some cases.