I'm browsing with JS and cookies disabled for speed and safety. Lately, more and more simple and plain blogs require JS to show any text on website. Can we just agree on letting basic html do it's thing? Why insist on JS to be able to show simple text on webpage?<p>For example:
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30725933" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30725933</a><p>Go ahead, disable JS and try opening blog on this link. Won't happen...<p>This page is simple dark text on white background with some images sprinkled in. Why is JS required to show this?<p>I'm sure I'm not alone in this...
No, we can't.<p>We can't agree on your stance, because other people have different stances. You may have some reason why you want JS and cookies disabled, but many people don't. JS has been a part of the internet for as long as I've been alive. Sure, it's being used different and sometimes needlessly as with the blog you noted, but it's here and it's not going anywhere.<p>If you want the web to be cookieless and JS-less, you can disable them. But the web is not cookieless and JS-less. You get the experience you want. You can't expect everyone to want that experience.
I use this as a productivity tool: See something interesting on HN, click the link... it's a blank page. Close the page, do something else. Often I remember I'm procrastinating and use it as the bell to get back to working on my side projects.<p>Even if I'm happily time-wasting - there's a heck of a lot of stuff on the web, no need for dealing with sub-standard websites!
I go further - if you want me to interact with your content regularly, add an RSS feed (or some other notifications system). I will _not_ remember to check your website on a regular basis, no matter how good the content is. Almost all of these JS websites do not have an RSS feed.<p>This all reminds me of the days when a whole website was an Adobe Flash application. It wasn't good then and it isn't good now.
I think it should not be an all or nothing proposition. A little js for the right reason can be valuable.<p>If we could instruct our browsers to use some budget constraints, such as max js size, max number of network requests, and max time, it would force site designers to reign in the unnecessary bulk.
On mobile, in the EU, the Web is unbearable so I mostly use Chrome with JS disabled with very few exceptions.<p>When I care enough about the content I open the page with either Firefox or DDG.<p>Then again I know I'm an exception, as I don't socialise or do anything fun online (anymore) or seek for cool stuff - just boring text only articles from HN and news.
Yes. If your site requires JS for one of the following things, it is simply broken:<p>- Video<p>- Plain-Text<p>- Images<p>- Sometimes forms<p>HTML provides everything you could need in the huge majority of cases.
> <i>browsing with JS and cookies disabled</i><p>Same, I would prefer to use <a href="https://nitter.net" rel="nofollow">https://nitter.net</a> front-end, rather than <a href="https://twitter.com" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com</a><p>eg. <a href="https://nitter.net/pastebin/status/1250847990131986432" rel="nofollow">https://nitter.net/pastebin/status/1250847990131986432</a> vs <a href="https://twitter.com/pastebin/status/1250847990131986432" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/pastebin/status/1250847990131986432</a>
I absolutely agree. My own personal website have no js, well usable with links, eww, w3m etc BUT most people do not care, for most a Mb+ webpage is nothing strange and they do not care about privacy and safety.<p>Just try to see how many use a modern WebVM [1] without limiting it's access to system resources (firejail, bubblewrap, capsicum, ...).<p>[1] those things too many call "browsers" for legacy reasons
I would recommend evangelizing and working on HTML-bridges to this:<p><a href="https://gemini.circumlunar.space/" rel="nofollow">https://gemini.circumlunar.space/</a><p>Asking people to not require javascript is like asking them to not use cell phones: yes, it would probably be better in many ways but it's not happening.
You are an extreme minority, and often any other visitor to a website who "looks like" you are malicious.<p>Why would anyone invest significant engineering time to placate a userbase that's far far smaller than Internet Explorer 10 usage?
Web sites can function well with both Javascript, and without Javascript. But programmers and companies have to want to do that.<p>Apple is a good example. It's often accused (especially on HN) of having a web site that is long on flash and short on substance. It's a massive company constantly trying to separate people from their money.<p>Guess what? apple.com works fine without Javascript.<p>And it still looks good. Even the pages flogging the latest phones and computers.<p>Almost any company can do the same. It just takes good managers, and good programmers. But both of those are in short supply these days.
No, that train has left the station. We can’t agree to go back to riding horses to work instead of cars or churning our own butter either.<p>I have the same reaction you describe — why does a site site use so much Javascript to display a page that could be plain HTML? But try pushing that idea to customers and bosses and their marketing teams and advertisers.<p>Even sadder is I talk to more and more people calling themselves front-end developers who can’t write plain HTML and CSS and have no clue how HTTP works. For them web front-end means React (or whatever the flavor is this month).
As I've commented elsewhere, I've found no-JS accessibility (as well as cookie and newsletter modals) to be great gatekeepers for low-quality content.<p>At some point, I've noticed a strong correlation between low-value content which was a waste of my time to read and these accessibility anti-patterns, so now I just close the tab and read the comments instead.<p>On the rare occasion I want to access the content despite these roadblocks, I use a proxy service.
Weird how some giant companies that sell ads for a living invented these JavaScript frameworks that render sites totally unusable when JavaScript is disabled
Well, that's an individual decision; its free software after all. There is a myriad of devs and more entering the field constantly.<p>I think it would be easier to invent a new programming language or a browsing engine than having a general consesus on what you are proposing.
- About 2% of users have JS turned off (in the US)<p>- About 1.7% of people have horses (in the US)<p>Can we agree it makes as much sense to add horse friendly paths to the side of all the roads in the US, as it does to add JS friendly paths to web sites?
You can't even buy online without JS because card collection (HTML forms) requires PCI Certification, which is expensive and the majority of merchants can't afford it.
Yes please. Browsers need to add much more to CSS to avoid JS for simple things like powerful calc() (with attribute values, more math etc), vertical rhythm and so on.
"Can we just agree on letting basic html do it's thing? Why insist on JS to be able to show simple text on webpage?"<p>Preach it, brotha!
Maybe if the kids still remembered how to write html in a text editor without needing frameworks and fucking transpilers and bundlers. My first site was written with Notepad. Back then we just uploaded stuff to the server with FTP and we liked it! :-D