Back in 2006/7 I remember we'd use "progressive enhancement" to make a site work without JavaScript and then add JavaScript enhancements for those who had JS enabled.<p>At some point (maybe after the popularity of Google Maps?) nobody wanted progressive enhancement and it was totally cool to just ignore users who had JS turned off. It made web app development so much easier, but probably less user friendly.<p>It feels like JS is a hammer to fix the nail of the page reload. I always thought it was too bad that browsers choose to show the blank page instead of sending the request and just rendering the difference themselves.
Install uBlock Origin and do it every day!<p>I block all JavaScript, then re enable it when needed to fix a site.<p>Often I just need to enable 1st party scripts in the uBlock Origin grid to fix it.<p>Make sure you enable advanced mode to see the grid.
<a href="http://lite.cnn.io/en" rel="nofollow">http://lite.cnn.io/en</a><p><a href="https://text.npr.org/" rel="nofollow">https://text.npr.org/</a><p>Every site should have a plain html option. Or create their html so that it works fine without js or cnn.
The author talks about "noscript" and makes it clear that it's not a reference to the html tag but to the idea of surfing the web without javascript. I was waiting for a discussion of NoScript, the popular add-on for Firefox that blocks javascript by default and allows for turning it back on on a site-by-site basis.<p>I surf the web, as I have for many years, with NoScript turned on and as few permanent domains white-listed as I can get away with for security reasons.<p>I don't have any numbers to back this up, but my guess is that the population of people who use the NoScript add-on dwarfs the population of users that actually disable their javascript in their browser. I'm not sure how someone like me shows up in their numbers, but I suspect that I would be on the "blocks javascript" list and then on the "uses javascript" list if I am intrigued enough about the site to enable some of the domains it requests javascript from.<p>I don't know if web developers take that into account or not, but I suspect they don't because the number of domains I have to experimentally temporarily enable just to see some parts of some sites is getting even more ridiculous these days.<p>Maybe someone should design a new protocol that is built for interactivity from the start instead of one designed around static content with back-flips needed to make it usably interactive.
The web works much better without JS, sites load faster and browser takes less memory. But sadly many sites use preloaders or plugins that hide entire page content until JS is loaded. What an awful idea.
I am not a developer, I can write just html+css. For my personal website (<a href="http://mrtno.com/" rel="nofollow">http://mrtno.com/</a>) I use just static pages written by hand. No JS needed, no stupid complexities.<p>I wonder why if I can sell my lack of skill on the market... because the skilled designers/coders are programing a web that really has a tendency to be so bloated.<p>I browse the web with no-script (firefox extension); and many websites won't even load without scripts. I wonder why. For many many website I don't see the need to have JS around at all.<p>Can the lack of skills be a skill? :) hire me!
Oh my lord, this article is non-sense. Had you gone to a website and had not been able to read anything I would say... good point. But you went to a Wordpress admin to prove your point. Lord have mercy... you're really going to hate your experience once WP switches to a JS based editor. Quick, let's try using Facebook and other apps built on JS frameworks and complain about the functionality not working. Let's try searching data tables with JS off, and let's try making ajax requests to load data over time instead all at once. It's not only in your browser it's in your phones, in apps that provide you services you can't live without.<p>These type of articles are a shame and are only written to instigate fights among developers. The world is using JS, it's on every major app. Get over it or make something better.
As much as I'd love for the majority of JS to go away, there is no denying the usefulness of AJAX in web forms. Doing page submit is not a better experience for the user or the developer. That's basically the only piece that I can't see going without.
Most content specific sites (which is what we're talking about right?) and Wordpress et al have RSS feeds out of the box, if you're that obsessed with making browsing <i>that</i> fast surely aggregating feeds is by far the fastest way to browse?
When the statistical body of internet users who refuse to use JavaScrpit are expressed in terms of a market to whom custom (JS-free) experiences will induce them to pay money for products and services we'll begin to see businesses create JS-free experiences for them.<p>Are there marketing-specific attributes of anti-JS web users?
"I Used The Web For A Day With Javascript Turned Off."<p>I Used the Web For A Decade With Javascript Turned Off.<p>I have been using the Web for over a decade via software that has no Javascript capabilities.<p>There is a conception one can detect in this article that there is only one "working" look for any website: the look that the designer intended.<p>However IME many websites "work" without ever engaging the "look" the designer intended. To discuss this, one needs to first specifically define what it means for a website to "work". I am not sure agreement can be reached on that issue.<p>It may be that the definition of "work" varies with each user. Different users may want different experiences. I know what I want from websites: data. I am less concerned with design. This may not be the case for another user.<p>The author cites Amazon as an example website.<p>When I am only <i>browsing</i> Amazon I do not use a "modern" web browser nor Javascript. Without a browser nor Javascript I can download product data in bulk, convert it to CSV and import it into kdb+ for easier searching and viewing. Without a browser nor Javascript I can download images of interesting products and embed them into a simple PDF for offline viewing, using pdflib.<p>When I am ready to <i>purchase</i>, then I might move to a "modern" browser with Javascript-enabled.<p>Other example websites he gives are Wordpress, Github, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube. I read the content of all these sites without ever using a "modern" browser nor Javascript. If I want to view images or video, I can download them as in the above case of Amazon. I may choose to view the data in whatever application I choose on whatever computer I choose on the local network, and the computer need not be connected to the internet.<p>For this user, these websites "work" just fine without Javascript. I can always use a "modern" browser with Javascript if I want to see what the designer intended. However this is rarely necessary for the experience I seek.
I do that every day with uMatrix[1], only overriding hosts when needed. I also turn off all CSS animation with Stylus.[2] The Web is becoming unusable without that.<p>[1] <a href="https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix</a><p>[2] <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/styl-us/" rel="nofollow">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/styl-us/</a>
The referenced site BlockMetry.com doesn't seem to go into how it calculated 0.2% as having JS disabled. Especially since it references Tor traffic as a high percentage my guess is that each connection was coming into the site with different fully-wiped Http connections basically disabling tracking. Alternatively what percentage of that traffic is simply cache bots for search engines, etc...
i want to invite others to try to visit Yelp on mobile with JS turned off. first off, you canr access anything. then the website provides nonsense reasons for why a user should have js turned on, and tries to guilt the user into doing do.<p>i always have js off by default, and turn it on momentarily when i feel it necessary. i do not feel it necessary for yelp.
Honestly, I don't see the wordpress backend as a relevant test case. Whoever else you might be catering to, it's fair to assume that someone building a website would have JavaScript enabled while developing.
I'm glad he can code his brochureware site with minimal impact when JS is disabled. It is 2018 and every site is driven by JS, not just DOM events. If you disable JS, you know what you're getting into. Do we need to develop for those that decide to block CSS? Insist on deprecated browsers? You develop for your audience.
Somebody should create a list of JS free sites. They can sell it at Whole Foods in the "medicine" aisle. You guys know what I'm talking about; "JS Free -All Natural!".<p>I think we've about reached the point of ideology on this. If you are considering arguing with the other side your probably better off arguing evolution with a creationist, or facts with the GOP.
I like that he offers solutions but honestly, more people are vision impaired than have javascript disabled so instead of doing all that work instead put it first on helping people with disabilities.<p>> There is a danger that more and more sites will require JavaScript to render any content at all.
What danger, exactly? While some sites that don't require a lot of js is nice you will soon notice that many sites you <i>want</i> js on. Music streaming services is one example.<p>I build api based sites nowdays because of mainly two reasons:<p>1. They feel more rapid after initial load and gives the user a better experience.<p>2. You can use the same api for web and mobile experiences.<p>I personally think that WebAssembly is the future so the web will finally just be another compilation target and I can't wait for it to be wide spread.