Here's a very relevant blog post by Alex Limi of Mozilla: <a href="http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/" rel="nofollow">http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/</a><p><i>Most sites these days that aren’t just displaying content will fail in interesting & mysterious ways if you don’t have JavaScript enabled. For the general population, Firefox will appear broken.</i><p><i>And yes, I know that some people have reasons (privacy, web development) to turn off JavaScript. There are many add-ons that can help with this — but it’s not something that we should ship to hundreds of millions of users.</i><p>(EDIT: this is the relevant quote, but worth reading the whole article)
Here's the bug where the option was removed: <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851702" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851702</a><p>Limi's blog post "Checkboxes that kill your product" is cited in the bug as a good explanation of the motivation behind this: <a href="http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/" rel="nofollow">http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/</a><p>The option has been added to the DevTools for developers who find it useful: <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=864249" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=864249</a><p>And of course addons like NoScript or js-switch are available if you still want this in your UI: <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/noscript/" rel="nofollow">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/noscript/</a> and <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/js-switch/" rel="nofollow">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/js-switch/</a>
A few months ago, I switched to using w3m inside emacs as my primary browser.<p>w3m is not capable of handling Javascript at all. And you know what, for 90% of the websites I visit, it doesn't matter. They function fine and look fine without Javascript. And if w3m could manage to make most websites look fine without Javascript, so could Firefox -- if its developers cared.<p>As for non-technical users -- they're probably not going to be opening Firefox's Preferences dialog in the first place. And if they do, they probably aren't going to start randomly checking and unchecking stuff to see what it does. That's something an adventurous geek might try, but certainly not your typical non-technical user.<p>If Firefox developers wanted to additionally protect the average user from this dangerous button, they could have simply stuck it in the Advanced tab of the Preferences dialog, or added a scary warning about being doubly sure that the user knows what he's doing (like they do with about:config).<p>That said, I'm happy to use NoScript for this functionality anyway, as it's far more flexible than a blanket "turn off Javascript everywhere with no exceptions" button.
I like this! The option is still there for power users (who most likely _know_ why they want to disable Javascript) and normal users can't accidentally disable it. Win-win!
I supppose too many people accidentally disabled Javascript in recent months while trying to disable Java. As long as there's an about:config option that does the same thing, I don't think it's a bad move to remove that option from view.<p>I will, however, miss the "Advanced" button next to the "Enable JavaScript" checkbox (if that button is going to go away, too, which the article isn't clear about). I use those Advanced options all the time to prevent websites from messing with my neatly tiled windows and trying to prevent me from using the right mouse button. Here in South Korea, the majority of blogs and forums have right-click protection enabled (and refuse to display any content if you disable Javascript altogether) due to ridiculous defaults in popular platforms, and every other website feels like they have the right to go full-screen. Firefox is the only thing that makes this stupid trend bearable. I guess I'll have to go and check whether NoScript has a similar option.
> This destroys a non-technical user's grasp of the differences between static HTML and programatically manipulated HTML.<p>I think this line says it all.<p>Non-technical user don't even know what HTML is, the concept they'd ever "grasp of the differences between static HTML and programatically manipulated HTML"? Do these people live in the real world?
I can't remember the last time I wrote an application that didn't rely on Javascript for even parts of its basic functionality.<p>I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS enabled and the average user definitely would never turn it off except in error, causing them to think the browser is broken.<p>Every single common-use browser on the Internet supports Javascript, there is no reason to assume it is not there as a developer.
> This destroys a non-technical user's grasp of the differences between static HTML and programatically manipulated HTML. It hides the setting amidst hundreds of other obscure settings, and does not emphasize the extremely powerful tool that JavaScript is, and the fact that it is optional.<p>Most 'non-technical users' don't have a clue about HTML, Javascipt, static features, etc. To them the internet consists of Facebook, Google and Youtube.<p>Arguably users who want to disable Javascript could be classified as 'technical', at least enough to be able to Google either a) how to do it from within Firefox, or b) install a plugin such as NoScript to do it for them.
Firefox is the most customizable browser available. It's about time they cleaned-up their Preferences panel and leave that stuff for extensions to tackle.<p>I personally never disabled Javascript from the Preferences panel because I never find anything in that panel. To disable Javascript, I use the Web Developer toolbar, which is much more convenient, although not convenient enough - since one might want to enable/disable Javascript automatically on a domain basis, which is why this should be best handled by extensions that are free to innovate the UI.<p>And while we are at it, I wish Firefox would add a search box in that Preferences panel. Its usefulness has been demonstrated in Chrome's Settings and Windows' Control Panel.<p>Also, Firefox rocks and I'm so happy to see it improve.
The following rant is somewhat tangential but, as a front-end developer that takes pride in progressively enhancing websites I work on, I think this is a shame for a different reason.<p>So many times when speaking to employers/product owners about progressive enhancement of JavaScript components, the answer I get back is along the lines of "we don't care about that" or "we don't have the time". Sometimes in conversations with other developers too. I think this change will contribute to an increase in that attitude.<p>Progressively enhancing a website enables you to still deliver a whizz-bang, fancy-pants UI but ensure that it degrades to a sane text document when viewed in, say, lynx [1]. And it doesn't mean doubling the development time of every feature, which I often hear cited as an argument against. Often it can involve providing a very cut-down equivalent that takes relatively little time to build.<p>Should we care about people that turn off JavaScript or use a non-JavaScript browser enough to write code for them? Given that the web is an open, standards-based platform, I think we should.<p>[1] <a href="http://lynx.browser.org/" rel="nofollow">http://lynx.browser.org/</a>
Way too many Geeky answers here. I could understand that, after all this is Hacker News.<p>But Majority of Users, My guess that is 60-70% of them, wont even know what Javascript is or mean.<p>My bet is that there is Less then 10% of users who cares about this. And less then 5% who just cant stand to disable it in about:config instead of UI.<p>And It is true what Mozilla have pointed out, Disabling even some totally unrelated Javascripts like tracking will somtimes make a mess of Websites. I have seen it far too many times with Ghostery.<p>For those 5% who REALLY cares about Disabling Javascript for any reasons because you think you <i>know</i> so much. I dont see why using an Add-On or going to about:config searching for Disable Javascript is such as big hassle.<p>And if you DO have such a big concern over a missing UI features, you can always go to Opera.
Is it just me, or do most of the commenters here seem to believe that it's no longer possible to disable JavaScript, as opposed to it simply being removed from the UI?
One aspect of this that I haven't heard people get into very much: the idea that a lot of people have, including (probably) most developers at Mozilla and many web developers such as myself, is for the web platform to be a ubiquitous way to deploy applications.<p>The idea is that JavaScript allows a relatively safe way to do that in a sandboxed environment (the browser) that is available on almost every computer.<p>The developers who really want the web to just be a bunch of static HTML are actually inhibiting that vision of a web platform. Because if disabling JavaScript were to become popular, that takes away that capability of web browsers to run applications. The conversation would go from something like "we can use JavaScript and this application will run for anyone who has a new version of Firefox, Chrome, or IE10/11, or Safari" to "we can deploy our application to the latest browsers, but we will have to first present a screen asking users to enable JavaScript on our site" or something along those lines. It goes from being a ubiquitous cross-platform solution to one that will only run for people who like JavaScript.<p>JavaScript in the browser is by far the best option we have now and in the foreseeable future for easily deploying applications across different types of operating systems and even devices.<p>Its amazing to me how many people don't appreciate that goal or really take it into account.
Okay, since Opera seems to have gone the way of the dodo: Is there a browser for power users? I mean, good luck to Firefox and Chrome, but considering I rarely use flashy websites, I really would rather use something that only works with half the sites, but has the experimentation and hunger for ideas for the sake of ideas more than for the sake of market share these so sorely lack.
There was a talk (or podcast?) that discussed how cluttered with vestigial options Firefox and other browsers are. One of the examples was JS - if you turn it off entirely it makes the entire web seemingly broken. As long as the option is there for power users, this is the kind of thing that removing will probably cause less headaches for people in the long term.
This is unnecessary panic/upset.<p>It's only being removed from the UI<p>The backend ability is still there.<p>Extensions like no-script and yes-script (I prefer) will still function.
Wow, how times change. The smart advice was to never use Javascript. (Years ago pg even wrote, "<i>I would not even use Javascript, if I were you. Most of the Javascript I see on the Web isn't necessary, and much of it breaks."</i> ) Javascript has gone from horribly flaky -> occasionally useful -> necessary -> mandatory.
disabling javascript is the most effective method against XSS, so it's really bad choice to not be able to do it simply.
not that firefox would be that security-minded in other areas regarding to javascript (XSS + form autofill without SecureLogin addon = fun & profit for hackers)
If Firefox's developers are worried about people not understanding why a page doesn't work, another potential solution would be to provide users with some feedback. For instance, if Javascript is disabled but present in a page, perhaps show a (simplified?) small debugger box showing the next lines of Javascript which <i>would</i> have been executed and some sort of an obvious Run / Play button to start the script.<p>I'd prefer if browsers treated the Web as less of a black box, and if they erred more toward helping users understand the world they are exploring.
As a Firefox user, I feel like most of the people complaining are Chrome users just looking to pick a fight.<p>Hey, Chrome folks, Firefox has this great thing called NoScript. I realize Chrome doesn't have that, so you have to manually disable/enable JavaScript. We just use NoScript, as we have for years, which does a lot more. Firefox users don't rely on the "Disable JavaScript" option, nor ever did.<p>This is a nonissue, but continue to make it more than it is.
I'm surprised that checkbox hung around as long as it did. I imagine only maybe .001% of browser users actually really cared enough to turn that off, and if they did, they were probably already running something like NoScript since toggling it in the preferences all the time is way too blunt an instrument anyway.
I can't stand engineers who assume that they know better than those who use their products. Not just hiding the ability to easily disable javascript, but RE-ENABLING IT AGAIST THE USERS EXPRESSED DESIRE via an update - seriously, your head is so far up your ass you'd have to shit twice just to see daylight.
This is a heavy-handed solution that could be better solved simply by adding more explanatory tooltips. Something like:<p>[x] Disable Javascript. This will break or significantly reduce the functionality of many websites, but will also prevent them from gathering marketing and other data on you. [Details](<a href="http://www.mozilla.org/javascript" rel="nofollow">http://www.mozilla.org/javascript</a>)<p>Make the primary tradeoffs clear, supply a link to a mozilla.org site with a more comprehensive explanation of what you give up and gain.<p>Programmers like to simplify, abstract, and modularize, but that isn't always the best strategy with language. Sometimes, even with control panel tooltips, it's better to be a little bit more verbose, take up a little more screen real estate, if it saves your users some trial-and-error time or a trip to Google.
I commented on this elsewhere, but to all the people who assume that developers can just build websites and assume that JS is enabled, please Google "Section 508".<p>FWIW, I don't think we should avoid educating users. Pandering to the dumbest common denominator only makes dumb things in the long run.
Well JS can be disabled with the help of plugins however I find it ominous that you have to be an expert user/programmer to disabled javascript.<p>There are a lot of websites out there that use javascript for less than reputable purposes so not being able to disable it when you know you might run into them is insecure.<p>Like say using tor where having JS enabled is like asking to be tracked.<p>I know disabling JS is not an option on the modern web but then ship with something like noscript instead don't just leave users exposed.<p>This is not a feature that can just be removed it needs to be replaced instead.
This will obviously receive a lot of hate from the tech community.<p>Fortunately they are the 1%. For everyone else in the world, this is a welcomed change. Most people don't even know what JavaScript is.
At this point, I'm fine with disabling options if the program is sufficiently scriptable / programmable to allow someone to write a plugin to duplicate the "turn off" behavior. For browsers, we seem to be in a plugin replaces options universe. If a browser plugin cannot duplicate the behavior, then the browser needs to be changed to allow it or the option needs to stay.
It makes sense to me. You can't even do Internet banking these days without needing Javascript enabled and to disable it you'll always have the plethora of addons that allow you to disable Javascript anyway. I think this is a welcome removal from Firefox, it's 2013 not 1925, Javascript is everywhere.
Looks like the reason behind the move is that preferences UI has become incomprehensible ... which actually doesn't have anything to do with javascript.
Perhaps a move towards Eclipse-like preferences would be a wiser choice?
I'm surprised no one has posted this xkcd strip yet.<p><a href="http://xkcd.com/1172/" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/1172/</a>
many web sites don't work without cookies either, specifically the authentication.<p>if the functionality of "modern" sites is the only rationale, it is simply a wrong decision by Mozilla.
Look on the bright side. At least we'll never, ever have to hear about the Principle of Least Power again from Mozilla/HTML5 advocates lionising the "Open Web" against smartphone apps, Native Client or what have you.
Not surprised. Mozilla, being an important entity in JavaScript ecosystem, obviously wouldn't disapprove web developers willing to shove JS down everyone's throat.
That spencer guy really sounds like a smartass; I mean, we're too stupid to be around him and not seeing the light that shines through his ass; vent off
I exclusively surf with javascript disabled by default. I only turn javascript on on websites that i trust or the site has to give a good reason to do so. i wont turn on javascript to display your crappy jquery menu or slideshow.<p>So many pages are totally broken without javascript. You dont need javascript to have a good layout, a complexe menu or display images. Yet some "professional" sites dont even work without javascript on, All you see is a blank page.<p>And by the way, there is a tag called noscript , but it seems webdesigners that only think about demonstrating their "html5" talents dont know their basics.<p>Javascript is the new flash. Stupid cheesy animations , heavy pages , memory leaks that kill your browser, javascript intros that you cant skip ,broken parallax scrolling , slow scrollbars so it feels like you are on ipad , it will be worse than flash when designers start abusing Adobe Edge on all their websites.<p>So long firefox...
Javascript is not required to read articles on the web. It's optional. That's why "Reader" mode is so handy, just show me the article so I can read it. Sometimes I don't like waiting for my browser to struggle with poorly written JS.<p>It sounds like a classic noobie mistake... "Why are users able to turn off Javascript?" "No idea." "Remove the feature!"<p>If anyone says Javascript is not optional, they are trying to sell you something: probably web apps!