"Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=873709&resub

by joallard • 13 years ago

445 365 13 years ago

bugzilla.mozilla.org

srikarg• 13 years ago

That's a good move to make considering the numerous JavaScript-dependent web applications present today!

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!

bpatrianakos• 13 years ago

It's even more relevant now with all the front end JavaScript frameworks that so many web apps rely on these days. In an age where web sites are now web apps that rely almost totally on JavaScript to function removing this option except for those who really have a good reason is acceptable and probably preferable. I feel like educating users is becoming harder and harder due to how hard we've all pushed for "it just works" type experiences so rather than fight the tide Mozilla is going with it.

Plus, apart from security concerns which can be dealt with other ways, JavaScript engines are now capable of running multiple web apps in many tabs simultaneously without being noticed. Wasn't performance one of the primary reasons for having this option back in the day? Now its not an issue. Going forward we might not see a disable js button and think it just as normal as not seeing an option to disable CSS or even html. It's kind of a non-optional piece of the web now.

Isofarro4• 13 years ago

It's even more relevant now with all the front end JavaScript frameworks that so many web apps rely on these days.

Hardly. The number of people who chose to disable JavaScript is utterly dwarfed by the factors that get in the way of JavaScript successfully executing on the page.

Very simply: A browser can not execute JavaScript it hasn't received: http://isolani.co.uk/blog/javascript/DisablingJavaScriptAski...

You are reliant on factors outside of your control. For example, a well-intentioned DNS Blacklist took down loads of Fortune 500 companies: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/05/google_opendns_clash...

exodust4• 13 years ago

Completely agree. Non technical users generally won't find the option to disable javascript, and won't understand it if they do find it. Enabled by default, users are better off using add-ons to disable or block JS where whitelists or better yet blacklists can be defined.

smokestack• 13 years ago

What's awful is that the update reportedly enables JS even if you had previously disabled it, though I doubt this was intentional.

JadeNB5• 13 years ago

Why do you think it was unintentional? It's specifically mentioned in the "Checkboxes that kill" blogpost, so they're hardly unaware of it.

(I agree that the changing of existing settings is the offensive part.)

swiftin• 13 years ago

Why is taking away features "in" now?

nwh2• 13 years ago

I'll bite.

Due to the names Java and JavaScript being so similar, users get confused when their technically-minded friend recommends that they disable Java in their browser. Somewhat like ham and hamster, with no prior knowledge the user has no idea that the technologies are entirely different.

I've personally had to help a number of people out who have mistakenly disabled JavaScript. That was the impression I got.

hayksaakian• 13 years ago

In theory, to make way for new ones and to avoid clutter in the UI.

CyberDroiD2• 13 years ago

It's a symptom of not really understanding the web or the browser.

hobs• 13 years ago

I think a fair question to ask is, "If you do not understand the internet, should it be easy to disable javascript in your browser?"

As a person who uses noscript every day in FF, at first I thought this was a bad idea, but the more I think about the support aspect of this, the only time I think you really should turn off JS is when you understand enough to find the advanced options.

mehwoot• 13 years ago

Because people now realise that adding features is not necessarily a good thing. It adds complexity to both development and using the product. If there isn't a very good reason for it to be there, then it shouldn't be.

Evidently the firefox developers do not think there is a very good reason for disabling javascript to be in the general options, so they removed it.

streptomycin• 13 years ago

I haven't noticed any particular trend recently. It's a constant undercurrent.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Paradox-Choice-More-Less/dp/006000...

http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html

mfincham• 13 years ago

<proselytizing> Software needs to empower the user. Writing arbitrary limitations in to code to make certain functionality harder to achieve is a seriously repulsive attitude for developers to have.

The current trend in removing features from software seems like a great way to have a dire shortage of engineers in 50 years time. The attitude that "software is a magic and untouchable black box, you can only use it to do the specific thing the developer wants you to" destroys the true power of the computer as a tool, it might as well be a radio or a TV that incessantly produces other peoples ideas.

Write useful, empowering and well tested modular code. Let the user work out what crazy and wonderful ways they arrange those modules. Don't make changes that serve only to glob more functionality up in to impenetrable, monolithic black boxes. </proselytizing>

Also: Overriding peoples existing preferences during upgrade? Nice work guys :/

njr123• 13 years ago

Have you ever actually met any normal users? They have work they need to do, and the software is just a means to an end.

They don't want to be 'empowered' by developers, and they definitely don't want to have to deal with arranging a bunch of poorly documented modules that make no sense if you are not familiar with the underlying architecture.

voyou2• 13 years ago

Your proselytizing reminds me of Alan Kay's idea (at least partly instantiated in Smalltalk) that there should be no fundamental difference between using a computer and programming. This is an interesting idea, but it's incredibly radical - I'm not sure even Kay realises how radical it is. As other people have said, a lot of people want to use a computer simply as a tool, to get on and do their work; that's because they have some definite "work" to do, and that work doesn't include exploring their computing system. Moving to Kay's vision would require abolishing this division of labour, right up to the fundamental division of labour between conception and execution, between means and ends. That is, to realise Kay's ideas of computer use we would have to establish a system with no distinction between work and creative activity: we would have to establish full communism.

pacifika2• 13 years ago

It's good product design to cut options that allow your used to break your product.

CyberDroiD2• 13 years ago

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.

It sounds like a classic noobie mistake... "Why are users able to turn off Javascript?" "No idea." "Remove the feature!"

If anyone says Javascript is not optional, they are trying to sell you something: probably web apps!

nwh2• 13 years ago

Javascript is not required to read articles on the web.

Unfortunately, it very much is. Nearly every website on the internet is completely useless without JavaScript.

I visited a large number of links from the HN front page, and many of them had broken navigation or images. You can't actually vote on HN itself either.

Nav_Panel• 13 years ago

Hacker News sans voting is nowhere near completely useless. I strongly suspect that a majority of people who read HN don't even have accounts (and thus are unable to vote). And even if the posts do contain broken links/images, a fair amount of text is often still available; I think a site's textual content is often its most important feature (unless it's a site specifically geared toward images/interactive content).

The "1% Rule"[0] grew out of this idea -- the hypothesis it poses is that 89% of the users of a given internet forum are strictly lurkers. HN has a more tech-oriented population than many forums, so I bet the differences between groups are less extreme, but I also bet that the overall trend still stands.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)

JoshTriplett• 13 years ago

Javascript is not required to read articles on the web.

Agreed. However, the web consists of far more than just "articles", and quite a bit of content legitimately uses JavaScript for required functionality. Disabling it needs to have the kinds of huge "this will break things" warnings associated with installing an extension like NoScript; it shouldn't have a checkbox in Firefox's preferences.

PavlovsCat11• 13 years ago

I have a crazy idea: a popup with an explanation the first time the user toggles the feature.

brudgers• 13 years ago

I surf a lot of the web with javascript off.

Most of the time, the major content of a page doesn't require it. When it does, it is usually either poor design, or good design where the design is intended to display a bunch of crap I don't want and download a hoard of tracking data.

To put it another way, when I'm surfing, Google Analytics isn't doing anything in my interest.

nhamann2• 13 years ago

It depends on the type of article. I write a lot of blog posts about math. The most convenient way to do this is using Mathjax. If browsers had native support for mathematical notation then I would be inclined to agree with you, but this is not currently the case.

logn2• 13 years ago

Can you get away with using unicode chars instead? ... Sounds like this could be a good open source project.

lmm5• 13 years ago

Isn't that what MathML is meant to do? Browser support is incomplete, but it sounds like a perfect use case for a javascript polyfill, so you could make pages that would work with either native browser support or javascript.

millstone3• 13 years ago

I came here to wax rhapsodic about Reader mode too. It's my favorite web browser feature in half a decade.

The fact is that most web sites use JavaScript _and_ CSS in a user-hostile manner. CSS is used to draw the eye towards advertising or other content on the site, with the hope of distracting me from what I came to read. Many sites even use CSS to create a faux-popup overlay "window" that has to be dismissed before the content can be viewed.

And of course, the vast majority of JavaScript is aimed at analytics, tracking cookies, advertisements, and other code that, as a user, I'd really rather not execute.

My ideal solution is something like ClickToPlugin, where a site can request JavaScript, and I can choose to grant it or not. Mozilla's decision is disappointing, because they are working in the interest of web publishers instead of web users.

lucian19004• 13 years ago

Ghostery is great at getting rid of most of that stuff and Adblock removes the rest; one can also disable Adblock per domain.

Click to play on plugins is great, Firefox should also have it builtin (as Chrome does).

muyuu• 13 years ago

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/js-switch/

grannyg00se3• 13 years ago

The bug was resolved as invalid with no explanation. I hope that by the time this makes it to regular release the transition is handled better.

gkoberger2• 13 years ago

Here's a very relevant blog post by Alex Limi of Mozilla: http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/

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.

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.

(EDIT: this is the relevant quote, but worth reading the whole article)

x0x03• 13 years ago

The other thing Alex posted is firefox really gives you no indication of why the internet looks weird and is breaking left and right. So you can disable js or images or ssl and unless you're lucky enough to know a programmer or IT person really have no guide to undoing whatever happened.

x0x03• 13 years ago

replying to myself: one more way apple simply makes better software: safari offers a simple reset option that seems to reset all browser settings. Now, this doesn't help in the case of a user not understanding what went wrong, but I can tell someone over the phone "click on safari -> reset safari" far more easily than walking someone through deleting a firefox profile while saving bookmarks or reinstalling firefox and creating a new profile. I don't like safari as a browser, but it's to apple's credit that they offer this simple option so I tell my mother / mother-in-law to just click reset if the internet is weird.

grannyg00se3• 13 years ago

If "the internet" is suddenly breaking left and right after you've disabled certain features wouldn't you try re-enabling the features?

JadeNB5• 13 years ago

Surely the best solution to "Firefox isn't very helpful about indicating when you've made a possibly breaking change" is "Firefox should indicate when you've done so", not "Firefox shouldn't let you"?

gavinpc2• 13 years ago

Try disabling cookies. This exactly describes the effect, except that it's not mysterious once you're used to it. If something doesn't work, I open it in Chrome (where I have cookies enabled), and it works.

In many cases, I suppose the developer doesn't know about the cookie dependency (because of a framework or some other dependency). In other cases, I guess they don't care. Rarely does the page actually tell you that cookies are required.

scotty793• 13 years ago

Thanks to recent legislation in Poland webpages should inform user if they are using cookies. Result? Web littered with annoying popups that everybody closes without reading.

jwarkentin2• 13 years ago

Frankly, I don't notify users in any way of a dependency on cookies or JavaScript. If you go disabling features fundamental to the functionality of the web, I expect that you know what you're doing and don't, in fact, expect most of the web to work. The web apps I build simply aren't going to function if you disable JavaScript or cookies.

Gormo3• 13 years ago

Is there any empirical evidence that suggests that people accidentally disabling JavaScript and then being confused as to why websites don't look right is a significant problem?

The author of that article says: "Is it really worth having a preference panel that benefits fewer than 2% of users overall? — obvious spoiler alert: The answer is no."

The answer is yes. If 2% of users have a purpose for it, perhaps it wouldn't have been high up on the priority list to implement as a new feature, but it's already there, and removing it requires extra work. Is it really worth removing features from an application to deal with some hypothetical problem that's been posited under the assumption that most users are idiots?

If there really is a problem, it may be worthwhile to move it to an "advanced settings" panel, but removing it entirely is a terrible idea.

It's worth noting that Chrome - a browser that's far less configurable and customizable than Firefox, overall - not only offers the ability to disable JavaScript globally, but has it as an option in the domain-specific permissions menu.

grannyg00se3• 13 years ago

"If there really is a problem, it may be worthwhile to move it to an "advanced settings" panel, but removing it entirely is a terrible idea."

I'd like to see the evidence as well. Perhaps there are dozens of bug reports coming in every week that can be traced back to disabled javascript.

They did leave it as an option in about:config though so at least it can still be disabled via javascript.enabled=false

BoyWizard2• 13 years ago

If there really is a problem, it may be worthwhile to move it to an "advanced settings" panel, but removing it entirely is a terrible idea.

Is this not the equivalent of 'about:config'? In reality it is the advanced settings panel, just without the pretty dialog to go with it.

Arelius• 13 years ago

I don't know of any empirical evidence, but the story normally goes: There is a new Java exploit, and recommendations to remove/disable Java hit the wild. Then while people try to find out how to disable "Java" Find "Disable Javascript" and assume it's related. Perhaps this would be solved by renaming it "Disable Ecmascript" however.

I really have no idea how common this is, but have seen it once, from a user that's technically savy enough to be diging in options and worried about security, but not savy enough to know the difference between Java and Javascript.

ubernostrum2• 13 years ago

"Advanced settings" dialogs tend to indicate poorly-thought-out interface design.

Rather than demonstrating careful attention to what features are useful and important enough to ship, they become dumping grounds for "something someone asked for once".

tomphoolery• 13 years ago

Is there any empirical evidence that the use of AdBlock + Ghostery or WOT or whatever privacy addons you're already using are any less secure than disabling JavaScript outright?

Disabling JavaScript has a few MAJOR disadvantages to proper web usage:

1. As the blog post has said, many web sites will fail in mysterious and unexpected ways. Some web apps may be rendered completely useless. In fact, you might as well just say goodbye to the modern web if you're gonna totally disable JS.

2. Since it's a "blanket fix", disabling JavaScript is a silly way to protect yourself from data miners. Instead, why not use an extension that has been proven to work, is actually available cross-browser, and gives you MUCH finer-grained control over what is displayed?

3. Since JavaScript is not the only thing that could potentially fuck up your web experience, disabling JavaScript doesn't even fix every problem related to privacy! You'd really have to disable JS, disable all plugins (Flash, Silverlight, Java, etc.), and pretty much block yourself out from a lot of the modern web just to be truly secure. At that point, you're really isolating yourself from a lot of the web's rich media, and doing so in spite of the plethora of tools available to combat the stealth data mining practices that these companies use.

Use AdBlock. Use Web Of Trust (WOT). Use Ghostery. At least know when sites are tracking you, and disable those tracking bugs when you see them. You don't need to turn off JavaScript and isolate yourself from an entire ecosystem of awesome, just to maintain control over what data you're sending out about yourself. The idea of turning off JavaScript has always been a silly concept to me, and I felt was simply there to please the more paranoid of us. But there has to be a time to face reality: It just doesn't work.

_pmf_• 13 years ago

Is there any empirical evidence that suggests that people accidentally disabling JavaScript and then being confused as to why websites don't look right is a significant problem?

Of course not. Mozilla's agenda is determined by its main sponsor, Google, which has a vital interest for JS to be enabled. Any spin on this being somehow "for the user" is bullshit.

legulere2• 13 years ago

Implementation isn't the only cost of features. You need to test them so they don't break. Features can be a burden for the codebase and removal can lead to many edge cases becoming unnecessary. A magnitude of features can overwhelm users, especially occasional users. They steal attention from other features that you may find more important.

And the most important point here: This feature really is broken as of today. Nobody can persuade me that they use it on their main browsers. I don't believe them.

mhaymo2• 13 years ago

The option has not been removed entirely, it is in the advanced settings, which are called about:config.

just2n• 13 years ago

I have to say that this article is actually quite terrible, as is the opinion that any option that might ever be confusing to a user is an option that shouldn't ship with the product. The thesis of the article is:

"Well, we have met the enemy, and he is us.* In the currently shipping version, Firefox ships with many options that will render the browser unusable to most people, right in the main settings ui."

The solutions offered? Kill it all with fire. I'm paraphrasing, of course.

Problem: People today change some feature then have a "broken" browser (basically, they forgot to turn it back to the default, or they didn't realize they changed it in the first place).

Solution: reset button, also notification to the user that "this page might not work correctly", some sort of an extension of how Chrome shows you that a popup and/or a cookie was blocked, based on your settings. Don't treat your users like idiots, just provide information that clears up certain odd states by explicitly informing them of something like:

"The webpage you are viewing may not work correctly because the following options differ from their default values:

1. Enable automatic loading of images. 2. Enable JavaScript.

These features of Firefox are essential for most webpages to run properly. If the webpage you are trying to access is behaving strangely or appears to be working incorrectly, <click here> to load the page with the default browser configuration."

Done, and done. No removing useful features from the browser, no treating users like morons, but now I have a new, useful, awesome, self-debugging feature which is user friendly, and doesn't require a pesky IT guru's assistance navigating the sea of 10 trillion options.

skriticos2• 13 years ago

Why not just put it in the about:config page for FF? Casual users are unlikely to accidentially access this page as there is no GUI navigation to it.

Though most casual users I know avoid GUI configuration all the same, so I don't really see the issue here.

vlasta2• 13 years ago

This was true 10 years ago. These days, every additional setting the application has is a liability. There is a growing group of people, who are scared to have conversation with their browser and make any informed decisions. They ignore such messages. Other people will change any setting they can find and then forget about it. Then they will be surprised and angry at the application that it is not working.

My experience shows that the more options an application has, the lazier the author was. What do you do as a software developer when there are two ways how to solve a problem? Ask the user which way to use? That is the wrong approach these days. The computer should not ask the user stupid questions. "Do you want to enable JavaScript?" is a stupid question for more than 98% of browser users. Instead of asking questions, software developers should invest the work to come with answers and "read the user's mind". Successful apps can do just that.

pilif• 13 years ago

Don't treat your users like idiots, just provide information that clears up certain odd states by explicitly informing them of something like

you assume that users actually read dialogs presented by the software. This is unfortunately not a correct assumption.

voyou2• 13 years ago

Those are terrible solutions, though. If a user has turned off JavaScript, there are basically two possibilities: if they turned it off accidentally, your solution will (in the best case scenario, where they understand the popup and realise they should click the reset button) temporarily break their browser and then fix it again; better then breaking it permanently, but not as good as not breaking it in the first place. On the other hand, if they turned JavaScript off intentionally, your solution will continually bother them asking them whether they want to turn JavaScript back on again. So your proposed solution actually works for no users at all.

maxhowell• 13 years ago

Sorry to be blunt, but it's clear you have never had to design or support a user-facing product. Anyone who has done either of these things will disagree with your base assumptions, ie. that users care about understanding their software, that they read warning texts, and that they don't mindlessly flip switches when trying to achieve unrelated goals.

sergeykish• 13 years ago

Problem: People today change some feature then have a "broken" browser They forgot what is changed, how to return back, no reset is not a solution. Solution: Educate users, provide "Undo" and "Redo" buttons, highlight changed controls

Someone2• 13 years ago

I am not planning on implementing that, but let's pretend I want to. When would that dialog come up?

Attempt #1: show that dialog as soon as a page tries to load some JavaScript. Result (I'm guessing): dialog shows up on 99.9% of all web pages one visits (even for the nerdiest of nerds)

Attempt #2: silently download the JavaScript to figure out whether it is 'benign' or 'evil'. Result: users complain that they pay for downloading stuff they do not want.

Attempt #3: make that dialog less intrusive; do not require acknowledgment. Result: users get trained to overlook it; users who accidentally enable the mode will never figure out what happened to their browser.

Attempt #4: a whitelist of allowed scripts. Problem: users will disagree about what should make it into the whitelist.

Attempt #5: the JSBlock extension. This may have merit. So, if you want this feature, download it, or write it if it doesn't exist yet. If the API does not allow writing it, bicker Mozilla.

camus3• 13 years ago

Don't treat your users like idiots That is exactly what Mozilla is doing , pushing down Javascript on everybody's throat. And marketing teams and advertisers are loving it. So much for their "dont track" stunt.

BoyWizard2• 13 years ago

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.

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.

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.

readme3• 13 years ago

Right. Non-technical users do not think that way, at all. Javascript and HTML are implementation details of the website they are using. Even people who hire IT consultants tend not to understand these things much, although they might think they do.

I can imagine most web developers who freelance have dealt with a complaint from a client who had mistakenly turned off JavaScript, at least once.

btipling• 13 years ago

Non-technical users do not even know what a browser is, much less anything about HTML or JavaScript.

aaron695• 13 years ago

This destroys a non-technical user's grasp of the differences between static HTML and programatically manipulated HTML.

I think this line says it all.

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?

slaxman3• 13 years ago

well said. The fault lies in assuming that the rest of the world works like the way we (hackers) do. The fact is that they do not. Further, many of end users actually do like some of those animations that we find shitty.

JS makes the web feel responsive and interactive. I helps keep the user engaged with you site if used in the correct manner. Removing the option that easily disables it for a majority of users if the right step. Hackers will always find a way around it.

dthunt8• 13 years ago

I will say this: it confuses the hell out of daihyou, who spends a lot of time on linkedin.

One man's 'responsive and interactive' is another man's "Did it work?"

I'm not going to make a value judgement on this bit. If snappy, responsive, and interactive are priorities, they should be handled in a way that doesn't involve opening the gates of hell and letting Javascript out. If the standards don't provide a clean way to do that that ensures accessibility and that pages don't discriminate against programmatic displays, then they damned well should so that we can exercise the hellspawn that is Javascript once and for bloody all.

Osmose• 13 years ago

Here's the bug where the option was removed: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851702

Limi's blog post "Checkboxes that kill your product" is cited in the bug as a good explanation of the motivation behind this: http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/

The option has been added to the DevTools for developers who find it useful: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=864249

And of course addons like NoScript or js-switch are available if you still want this in your UI: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/noscript/ and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/js-switch/

mullingitover• 13 years ago

Sure, blame the 'checkboxes' and not your own failure to handle disabled js gracefully.

I'd be mad about this, except I haven't used firefox in years. One less reason to go back I guess.

tracker18• 13 years ago

Guessing you don't use facebook, twitter or any major webmail provider like 99.99% of the users online do. For over 99% of users this is a feature that shouldn't be visible.. for the other 0.0x% there is about:config ... I don't bitch about having to go into about:config to change my cache settings for when I am testing...

zevyoura• 13 years ago

You can blame the web at large for moving in a direction that assumes JS is enabled, but that doesn't make the UX better.

kristiandupont• 13 years ago

How would you have Firefox "handle" this, exactly?

rmc3• 13 years ago

Lots of the Web does not do graceful degradation to fully functional sites without JS. That ship has sailed, that battle has been lost. JavaScript is a required, not optional, part of a lot of the Web.

exodust4• 13 years ago

"failure to handle disabled js gracefully."

How are we meant to handle AJAX requests that fetch data to display on the web page that allows users to achieve the goal of their visit? Without JS enabled, that part of the page will be blank, and many modern, rich content-heavy sites now pull data from different places on the fly, it's just how it is.

Is your idea of gracefully handling this situation putting a noscript tag there saying "please enable JS"? If so, what exactly is your problem with removing the option which we only ask users to re-enable anyway?

As many others have pointed out, you can still disable JS if you really need to. It's average non-technical users who don't require that option.

kondro9• 13 years ago

I can't remember the last time I wrote an application that didn't rely on Javascript for even parts of its basic functionality.

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.

Every single common-use browser on the Internet supports Javascript, there is no reason to assume it is not there as a developer.

Dylan168073• 13 years ago

Key word application. An extremely small percentage of the websites I visit qualify as applications.

kondro9• 13 years ago

But even Hacker News would be provide a better user experience if it made more use of Javascript to publish comments, etc. instead of all the jumping around with the current UI. Something only possible with JS.

straight_talk3• 13 years ago

> I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS enabled

Security, performance, JS ads ...

> Every single common-use browser on the Internet supports Javascript

My company provides a web based app to Fortune 500 banks, around 15% of the browsers we see have JS disabled.

dbaupp• 13 years ago

around 15% of the browsers we see have JS disabled

How many are bots/scrapers?

kondro9• 13 years ago

15% of browsers? I don't believe it. This has definitely not been my experience. You must be counting scrapers/bots in this total.

Security? The browser sandboxes everything.

simonbrown2• 13 years ago

How are you detecting whether they have JS disabled?

aethr3• 13 years ago

It's not a question of browser support, it's a question of user choice. Do I want to allow any and all websites to run random scripts on my computer?

For some people and some sites, the answer is an obvious yes. Especially when the script is an integral part of the app or site you're visiting, such as a game or a highly interactive tool.

Sometimes though, the content should be enough. There are plenty of sites out there, like blogs, that shouldn't need js to provide their primary function. For example, I don't feel that I should need to enable client side scripting to view a 140 character tweet on the twitter site.

For some people, tracking via js is the primary concern, and in their case it makes sense to disable js whenever possible, and use offline tools for everything that needs to be interactive.

In any case, this move has a solid precedent, and as others have noted there are plenty of plugins that allow granular control over js execution.

ANTSANTS• 13 years ago

I spend a lot of time browsing the web each day. I spend very little time using "web apps," and the few that I do use can easily be whitelisted, since I rarely try new ones. Everything else is basically a blog, article, some other completely static source of information, or an entirely HTML forms-based interface.

I don't block and selectively whitelist javascript, but I think I'd barely notice if I did. Maybe I'll give it a shot some time.

ars3• 13 years ago

I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS enabled

It's faster. Much faster. Every time I disable noscript to use some website (90% of the time it's video that doesn't work) I'm always astonished how much GARBAGE most website have. Totally useless stuff.

Popup boxes, annoying underlining with mouse overs, certificate verifiers, bookmarks, social network promoters, chat boxes, and helpers galore.

I suppose that stuff pays the bills? Maybe. But pages are so much faster without it.

kondro9• 13 years ago

But that stuff is all important for the website owner.

Advertising for paying the bills, analytics tracking to work out who is using their site, chat/comments boxes for social interaction.

lucian19004• 13 years ago

I use Ghostery to remove analytics and stupid buttons. I sometimes have to disable it for broken websites, but that's relatively rare.

darkarmani2• 13 years ago

I can't remember the last time I wrote an application...there is no reason to assume it is not there as a developer.

I'm starting to feel old, since no one seems to remember HTML webpages instead of apps or those people that would say they can "program" html.

dman2• 13 years ago

Speed. Try loading theverge.com or cnn.com with / without javascript.

kondro9• 13 years ago

The content on both those sites load plenty fast with JS turned on… and I'm based in Australia with our shitty connection to the rest of the world.

vacri2• 13 years ago

Some mainstream sites will load js from 20 (or more) sources, just to show you an article. Crazy.

Every mainstream browser supports Flash, too - does that mean Flash is the way of the future?

I run with NoScript, and it makes the web a quieter, more peaceful place.

thenonsequitur• 13 years ago

Actually, at least one mainstream browser (Safari for iPhone) doesn't support Flash, and that's a part of why Flash has been declining (HTML5 capabilities being another important part).

rlpb• 13 years ago

There's now a distinction between a web application and a simple web page.

If I just want to read content, I'm not interested in running your application. I'd rather keep Javascript off and retain my anonymity.

If I actually want to use your application, then sure, I'll enable Javascript for your site.

dangayle2• 13 years ago

There is a reason to assume that it is not there, particularly if you're developing a U.S. government website, and that's for accessibility reasons.

Google Section 508 and you'll see what I mean. Go ahead and build your site to use javascript, but don't continue under the false pretense that everyone needs/can use javascript.

overgard• 13 years ago

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.

SmokyBorbon• 13 years ago

Firefox

2002-2013

holalala2• 13 years ago

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?

kijin2• 13 years ago

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.

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.

thristian• 13 years ago

I can confirm the "Advanced" button is gone.

At least for the moment, the dom.disable_window_move_resize and dom.event.contextmenu.enabled preferences still exist in about:config, though.

51Cards• 13 years ago

This is what will be the major issue for me. I toggle the right click override option on and off on a very regular basis.

Svip• 13 years ago

How often do Firefox retire settings in about:config? There are still a bunch of old old settings in there, that you can still change.

Want your Firefox to behave like a 1990s browser with one window per website? You can configure that.

jwarkentin2• 13 years ago

You know in Firefox you can hold shift and right click and it will bypass any event handlers on the website. It will just give you your FF context menu.

kijin2• 13 years ago

Wow, thanks. Every time I learn a new shortcut, there seem to dozens more waiting to be discovered.

Shank2• 13 years ago

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.

duskwuff• 13 years ago

You're probably thinking of "Checkboxes That Kill": http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ - and I believe it's what inspired Firefox to remove the option.

Shank2• 13 years ago

That's exactly what it is. Thanks!

gnosis7• 13 years ago

A few months ago, I switched to using w3m inside emacs as my primary browser.

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.

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.

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).

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.

jlgreco2• 13 years ago

What is your take on w3m vs elinks?

gnosis7• 13 years ago

I really haven't used it much, except as my default external HTML->Text converter (via wget + HTML::FormatText::Elinks), of which it does a good job.

Unfortunately, its main weakness is that (as far as I know) it's not integrated in to emacs as w3m is. If it was, I'd probably look to it as a serious contender. But since it's not, I'm afraid I'm stuck with w3m -- for better or for worse. (Right now, it's for better, as I'm quite satisfied with w3m -- except for my occasional Javascript needs, for which I fall back to Firefox, Opera, or Chromium).

dotmanish• 13 years ago

"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."

You would be surprised what non-geeks tend to do when they have no clue what to do.

reeses2• 13 years ago

My mother-in-law emailed my wife a one line message today asking why she's seeing ads on Facebook that she hadn't seen before.

You are on the mark.

nfriedly• 13 years ago

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...

You clearly haven't worked with the same non-technical users I have. It took ages to figure out that "use TLS" getting unchecked was the reason our site wouldn't load for one particular visitor.

I wholeheartedly support removing all of these check boxes.

holalala2• 13 years ago

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)

camus3• 13 years ago

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.

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.

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.

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.

So long firefox...

gkoberger2• 13 years ago

Try an extension? Power users aren't the target market for this decision, and that's why add-ons exist.

gnosis7• 13 years ago

Javascript, Flash, HTML 5, and virtually all the rest of the HTML "enhancements" are a cancer on the web.

Honestly, the only website that I can think of where using Javascript actually does something useful that I'd have a hard time doing better on a standalone app on my own machine is Google Maps, where it's nice to be able to scroll around by dragging the map with the mouse.

But even there, I'd gladly sacrifice that feature for a standalone mapping app on my own machine, so I don't have to worry about Google spying on me whenever I decide to go somewhere!

Geez. The web has become a gigantic spyware advertising network, and Javascript, Flash, and related garbage are some of the main enablers of it.

</rant>

slaxman3• 13 years ago

May be that works for you. But a significant number of web developers are moving on JS frameworks for web development such Angular, Meteor, Node, etc. Most sites built on these frameworks will break is javascript is disabled. As an end user, that is the worst user experience you can ask for.

foobarbazqux• 13 years ago

Youtube needs either Flash or HTML5, do you think it's worthless?

karussell3• 13 years ago

You are funny. IF you enter the destination in Google Maps, then of course Google knows your destination. JavaScript on or off... if you really want privacy you'll have to host it on your own or use offline navigation tools

karussell3• 13 years ago

BTW: Did you already see this here ;)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968237

Groxx2• 13 years ago

So you're not OK with giving a site a fairly narrow range of sandboxed permissions, but you are OK with installing an opaque binary that can read, modify, transmit, and destroy nearly every piece of your data on your computer.

driverdan2• 13 years ago

TL;DR: Get off my lawn.

HN demonstrates good use of JS: AJAX voting. Forcing you to navigate to another page in order to vote is slow, annoying, and disruptive. Plenty of sites make good use of JS. For those who don't use NoScript.

acqq• 13 years ago

I also surf without the Javascript enabled. It's much safer and faster that way. I suggest everybody to try that for a longer period of time before opining.

Most of the pages I visit function without Javascript. The most of sites where it doesn't that I know of are *.blogspot sites managed by Google.

icebraining4• 13 years ago

I fully agree with you, but that's why I use an addon that lets me allow JavaScript per-domain instead of having to allow every shitty social button to use the main functionality of the site, and it can even remember my preference.

Why would you use the global JavaScript disabler when there are much better options?

tomjen32• 13 years ago

Honestly stop whinning so much. Javascript is just as important a part of the web as CSS. Would you complain if sites broke because you switched of CSS? Likely not.

camus3• 13 years ago

And you stop abusing Javascript when it is not necessary because you want to show off.

When CSS is switched off content is still readable.

And dont worry , people will turn off javascript more and more like they turned off flash because of all the stupid stunts developpers pull.

driverdan2• 13 years ago

Why wouldn't you use the NoScript extension? Not only does it give you fine grain control over JS but it adds additional security monitoring, such as click jacking.

alister• 13 years ago

Wow, how times change. The smart advice was to never use Javascript. (Years ago pg even wrote, "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." ) Javascript has gone from horribly flaky -> occasionally useful -> necessary -> mandatory.

tracker18• 13 years ago

That's because more people are actually taking the time to understand the browser, dom, markup and language itself, instead of copy/pasting some poorly written image-swapping script. (God I've seen too many of those)... JS has been capable of doing some fairly impressive app-like functionality since the late 90's. I'd say NN4/IE4 was the beginning of that ability, despite dramatically different approaches.

Today, browsers have far more in common (regarding js/dom) with each other (IE8+ too) than at any point pre-2005. And it is about damned time. I still think the likes of jQuery round out a ton of those rough edges, and it still disappoints me to see so many who hate JS because they want it to be (insert preferred language here).

JS is, and has been my favorite language for a very long time.

Dylan168073• 13 years ago

You imply that javascript stopped being flaky. I find that it's often flakiest on sites where it's mandatory.

PavlovsCat11• 13 years ago

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.

asnyder2• 13 years ago

Why do you think Opera has gone the way of the dodo? It's an excellent browser, by far the best browser in my opinion. Furthermore, they're changing their renderer to webkit which will ensure no more Opera incompatibility. If anything, Opera just keeps getting better.

dmpk2k• 13 years ago

The newest version of Opera strips away most of the tools power users like. It's one step away from Chrome's UI.

They'll probably add most of it back, but it'll take a long time.

PavlovsCat11• 13 years ago

I know it's the best, I am using it was we speak and have been doing so since 2000. The last time I tried it Opera Next after the switch to blink, I couldn't install it -- so I read the comments instead, and it sounded like a gazillion of features were missing. If those get all transferred, I am happy and you can strike that comment. But if they only transfer the shiny stuff "most people need", I'd love to move on, just because all of this is sad and I don't wanna see it anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I always wished Opera mainstream success. But I think there is also something to be said for niches, and the desire to appease the existing average just because the balance book says that's the best, needs to be called out on sight. Imagine authors only writing books 98% of the people agreed with or cared about. We'd still be in caves with that attitude.

I know making tools isn't exactly the same, but it's also not totally different, IMHO. We need to aim higher than were we are. Every sports fan knows more and more complicated facts than even using all features of Opera would require. Riding a bicycle, much less driving a car, is more complicated than being aware of what option you just clicked - ffs!

If even Firefox can't help but caving in like that, I simply won't dare to hope Opera does better, until I actually see that happening.

I am sorry for ranting, this topic is a huge pet peeve of me. Like when Apple talked about how folder hierarchies are "too complicated", gah. I know I'm expecting too much of people, but I really would rather err on the side of that, than on the side of expecting too little, and then getting exactly that.

ubernostrum2• 13 years ago

Sure, there's a browser for power users. It's called being enough of a power user to install extensions that do what you want.

PavlovsCat11• 13 years ago

Actually, it's called coding them myself, but even then I'd rather do that in C than with several layers of abstraction (coding in javascript for a XUL interface or whatever that is -- let me know how startup and runtime performance works out for you when you have 50 of them and 50 tabs open).

icebraining4• 13 years ago

Sure: surf[1], uzbl[2] and luakit[3], among others. Or my favorite: Firefox + NoScript + Vimperator.

[1] http://surf.suckless.org/

[2] http://uzbl.org/

[3] http://mason-larobina.github.io/luakit/

tessellated• 13 years ago

Have a look at luakit. It's basically the Webkit engine and everything else scripted in Lua.

bdcravens• 13 years ago

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?

ilaksh2• 13 years ago

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.

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.

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.

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.

Its amazing to me how many people don't appreciate that goal or really take it into account.

zanny• 13 years ago

I just want to mention that the order of operations here was that the web took the world by storm overnight and application developers said "there is a turning complete language in the standard, lets use it for programs rather than document scripting".

It didn't start out as lets make an application platform that can be accessed via url, it was make a document format (html) and share them over a network protocol (http) and provide scripting with javascript, and when everyone and their moms PC had that, developers started saying "can't we make that into a full blown application platform?" (besides failed experiments like java plugins or flash as an application framework)

I really wish we had just let html be documents and made a real remote-access application framework to work along side it, rather than having your program be 2 - 3 tags of html and 5MB of js. I'd much rather be sharing a qml application than an html5 one, because the latter was ground up designed to be a full featured interactive graphical interface program.

That would actually be neat, if browser engines included a qml parser and could load qml files as programs in the browser window frame. It is just extended javascript after all.

comefrom30• 13 years ago

In addition to traditional client-server webapps, what about making local-only apps that just happened to be written in HTML, JS, and CSS? Possibly with a package manager run by the browser?

ilaksh2• 13 years ago

http://diveintohtml5.info/offline.html

NinjaWarrior• 13 years ago

I still completely disagree making the web an application platform. Because of the absurd HTML5 cult, many websites are obtaining unpredictable and inconsistent behavior. The difficulty of explaining it to my old parents is increasing day by day. Moreover, browsers are getting fatter unlimitedly and only a few vendors can survive and develop them. It gives browser vendors special privileges. As we are experiencing now, no one can stop this "Disable JavaScript" removing. How can people say this is "open" movement? The good old web is dying.

The web should be words and documents first (I think this page is worth reading http://justinjackson.ca/words.html). It's too late to say but if you want a sandboxed application platform, develop it out of the web. I still believe the plug-in was not a that bad idea, not the best idea though. At least you can disable it anytime and you have freedom of choice.

I suspect that the back button will be eliminated next. Because it collapses most web applications and "user experience".

If the web want to become a perfect application platform, all virtue of the web will be lost.

Ygg2• 13 years ago

Good old web? What's that? The one with dancing baby gif? Or the old ARPANet?

Web has always been about managing documents in one way or the other. Now those documents are interactive and interesting to watch and listen.

I mean, if my old chem book had cool animations I could tinker with I'd probably be having fun with it right now. I don't understand the outcry for GOW. It's still around and you can still make those sites, but they are usually hard to read (no fancy column layout to make it easy on the eyes) and you have to be a great writer to really engage the audience.

Going back to GOW won't make bad writters instantly better. No more than returning to 8-bit graphic won't instantly make all games better.

Ankaios• 13 years ago

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 would have been executed and some sort of an obvious Run / Play button to start the script.

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.

dave1010uk• 13 years ago

This is a great idea, but should probably be simpler for the average user. Eg "You have JS off, which will break some websites. Click here to turn it on. The simple option you used in the past to toggle this has gone. Click here to find out how to toggle it now"

sampk• 13 years ago

Classic Brendan Eich.

dmiladinov• 13 years ago

As long as you can still disable JS via about:config or NoScript, this is hardly worrisome.

aerolite• 13 years ago

Stop disabling Javascript, you Luddite. The entire web depends on it.

saejox• 13 years ago

There are more people who disable JS unintentionally than those who do it intentionally.

This is a good move. Option still exists in about:config.

ck2• 13 years ago

This is unnecessary panic/upset.

It's only being removed from the UI

The backend ability is still there.

Extensions like no-script and yes-script (I prefer) will still function.

PommeDeTerre2• 13 years ago

A lot of the anger in this case is because Mozilla is once again removing useful functionality from Firefox for very nebulous reasons.

Even if such functionality can be restored by using about:config, or by installing extensions, it becomes a hassle.

They did this with the menu bar, and it hurt Firefox's usability. Now many of us have to waste time and effort reconfiguring it to make the menu bar reappear every time I install Firefox.

They did this with the status bar, and it hurt Firefox's usability. Now many of us have to waste time installing extensions to restore this core functionality.

This case may be even worse, because it's not a one-time fix. Now we'll have to go digging through about:config options each time we want to disable JavaScript, or wait until Firefox 24 so we can disable JavaScript through the developer tools.

Many of us are just plain getting fed up with Mozilla's bad decisions, and very justifiably so.

mhaymo2• 13 years ago

- disabling javascript via about:config is no harder than through the settings if you know about it

- How does removing the status bar hurt usability? You still see links when you hover over them, and the add-on bar can be toggled instantly with Ctrl+/

- Always displaying the menu bar by default is a waste of space, it can still easily be accessed with Alt or configured to always display.

Honestly you seem to just dislike change, and I'd advise you to simply turn off automatic updates. The rest of us are happy for improvements to be made.

dewiz2• 13 years ago

many web sites don't work without cookies either, specifically the authentication.

if the functionality of "modern" sites is the only rationale, it is simply a wrong decision by Mozilla.

tomjen32• 13 years ago

You can't make authentication to work safely without cookies because HTTP isn't stateful.

bad_user4• 13 years ago

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.

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.

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.

Also, Firefox rocks and I'm so happy to see it improve.

hnha• 13 years ago

Have you tried opera (not the latest Chrome-bastard but earlier versions)? I'd challenge your statement, opera seems much more customizable to me.

bad_user4• 13 years ago

When I said "customizable" I didn't mean in terms of settings, but it terms of what you can do with Extensions/Add-ons.

Name another browser where the Firebug-like functionality is an extension and not something built-in.

__david__• 13 years ago

I agree--the global Javascript disable is pointless in this day and age.

As for enabling it by domain, check out the "noscript" extension. I've been running it for a couple years and it (a) lets you see from which domains a page is loading Javascript files and (b) lets you enable/disable Javascript from particular domains. I've never enabled facebook.com, for instance, since I don't have an account there and I don't like the idea that every page out there with a "like" button is tracking me.

ID_10T2• 13 years ago

This will obviously receive a lot of hate from the tech community.

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.

gcb0• 13 years ago

Didn't gnome3 taught us a valuable lesson on dumbing things down on the expectation that users are dumb/can't read?

readme3• 13 years ago

I hope you realize that the users of Gnome and other X11 desktops have already passed a serious level of technical literacy. In the event they haven't, it's because they're the direct family member of some techie.

ID_10T2• 13 years ago

As a Firefox user, I feel like most of the people complaining are Chrome users just looking to pick a fight.

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.

This is a nonissue, but continue to make it more than it is.

prima-facie• 13 years ago

About time. JS is an integral part of the web experience.

crististm• 13 years ago

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

Fuxy• 13 years ago

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.

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.

Like say using tor where having JS enabled is like asking to be tracked.

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.

This is not a feature that can just be removed it needs to be replaced instead.

philbo3• 13 years ago

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.

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.

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.

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.

[1] http://lynx.browser.org/

pacifika2• 13 years ago

Shouldn't progressive enhancement be part of best practices, rather than a billable feature on the invoice? Or in other words, used by default.

philbo3• 13 years ago

Absolutely! But I still find myself having to make the case for it, when others are looking for ways to cut corners.

mikeratcliffe• 13 years ago

Which is exactly why we added the disable JS button to Firefox developer tools options. It simply disables it for the current tab until the tab is closed.

Isofarro4• 13 years ago

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"

Stop talking. Start doing instead. Employers and product owners are hiring you for your skills, so use them. Don't ask permission to follow best practice, just do. You are more than a code monkey.

Do your employers really not care if a third party outside of their control decide to do something to affect the availability of their site?

Do your employers control, audit and manage every single byte that gets delivered as part of their website? For those they don't completely and accurately manage and control, how do they absolutely ensure that every byte that needs to be delivered arrives correctly and is interpreted correctly in their users browser? How do they remove the risk of all those server hops between their web server and the customer's browser? How do they control that?

The Web cannot be controlled or managed in this way. There are simply too many factors outside of a website owners control that affect how their site is perceived by customers. Without pragmatic approaches it's either an all-or-completely-broken situation, or when a site is built properly with progressive enhancement, a slight degradation of usability that customers don't really notice - because the core experience just works.

https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/making-software/progressiv...

Want a good data point? How about a couple that decided rather vocally that progressive enhancement is dead. $100,000 spent on a bootstrapped application, and then this astonishing comment: http://unicornfree.com/2013/why-we-shut-down-charm-on-the-ev... -- read the third paragraph of that comment.

Sometimes, it's an expensive lesson to learn.

frontsideair2• 13 years ago

I'm surprised no one has posted this xkcd strip yet.

http://xkcd.com/1172/

frontsideair2• 13 years ago

Oh, and I didn't post this to bash the sincere concern about discoverable options. They could disable JS, and they still can, using an extension or going through a menu which clearly states that those configurations may break the 99% of the web.

Every change is prone to break someone's workflow. But if there is a good enough alternative and if the change is better for everyone, I think that should be left alone. If there was no way to disable JS after this update, I'd be pretty mad as well. But having an option deep enough to keep away from unsuspecting eyes is only sane.

DigitalSea• 13 years ago

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.

pschastain• 13 years ago

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.

leoc• 13 years ago

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.

dangayle2• 13 years ago

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".

FWIW, I don't think we should avoid educating users. Pandering to the dumbest common denominator only makes dumb things in the long run.

protomyth• 13 years ago

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.

philliphaydon• 13 years ago

WOOOOHOOOO Best knews I've heard for Firefox! Now if only every other browser would do it.

marco-fiset• 13 years ago

The thing is that non-expert users generally leave javascript on, because they don't even know what it is, let alone disabling it.

rocky1138• 13 years ago

The title isn't entirely accurate: it's been moved not removed.

ksec• 13 years ago

Way too many Geeky answers here. I could understand that, after all this is Hacker News.

But Majority of Users, My guess that is 60-70% of them, wont even know what Javascript is or mean.

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.

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.

For those 5% who REALLY cares about Disabling Javascript for any reasons because you think you know so much. I dont see why using an Add-On or going to about:config searching for Disable Javascript is such as big hassle.

And if you DO have such a big concern over a missing UI features, you can always go to Opera.

drdaeman• 13 years ago

Not surprised. Mozilla, being an important entity in JavaScript ecosystem, obviously wouldn't disapprove web developers willing to shove JS down everyone's throat.

mattbeck• 13 years ago

It's about time.

SkyMarshal• 13 years ago

This is a heavy-handed solution that could be better solved simply by adding more explanatory tooltips. Something like:

[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](http://www.mozilla.org/javascript)

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.

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.

wprl• 13 years ago

Good!

joeheyming• 13 years ago

Maybe Firefox can replace it with a don't tender html checkbox </sarcasm>

"Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23

Related Stories