And THIS kind of BS is EXACTLY why I have NoScript ON by default, EVERYWHERE
-
Maybe he meant "without going more insane".
-
And yes, eval() is a level of stupid beyond all others; why that was ever part of the language, I'll never understand.
Eval makes things easily Turing-complete (I suppose string concatenation is required in addition). So define a few built-in operations, and just throw eval into the mix and it is a full-fledged programming language!But ... right ... was a stupid idea. Overall and also in a lot of details.
-
Do we need laws to force companies and people to stop this nonsense and FORCE security at the design stage?
Yes, we definitely need more magical laws.
-
Happy now?
No, I think the point of your analogy is pretty weak, actually, no matter what thing you choose.
-
If people want to disable Javascript, that's their choice. Just don't then do the next thing that most noscripters move on to, which is moan about how some website doesn't work when they've turned off an integral part of what makes it work.
To use a car analogy, if I take the battery out of my car because acid is dangerous, I have no right to complain that my headlights don't work and I have to bump start it every time I want to go anywhere.
-
@RaceProUK said:
Not exactly a lethal weapon, is it?
They'd make mildly decent blunt instruments. And then when they broke, they'd have jagged edges. Soooooooo... Yeah, totally could be.
They probably come with warnings about choking hazards for small children, too.
-
If people want to disable Javascript, that's their choice. Just don't then do the next thing that most noscripters move on to, which is moan about how some website doesn't work when they've turned off an integral part of what makes it work.
It doesn't bother me when sites don't work without JS; what bothers me is the sites that don't degrade gracefully, especially those that degrade so badly all they show is a white screen. It's not like it's difficult to test either; it's just people don't bother.
-
I don't test my Windows software on WINE either. If you're specifically not using something standard in favour of your special snowflake setup then it's not my problem
-
Not comparable. When making a website, you cannot guarantee the presence of many things, including scripting. This has been a known thing for over 20 years, yet people keep ignoring it. And even if you do have scripting, you can't guarantee all features will be available; that's why things like jQuery, Modernizr, and polyfills exist.
-
In the last 20 years JavaScript-support has become a lot more widespread. Today you don't have half of your audience using something like Internet Explorer 2.0 without JavaScript. Not even on mobile.
-
You still can't guarantee the availability of scripting; NoScript et al are quite prevalent, and certainly as a percentage, a lot more people use them than use WINE.
-
When making a website, you cannot guarantee the presence of many things, including scripting. This has been a known thing for over 20 years, yet people keep ignoring it.
You still can't guarantee the availability of scripting;
Right, that's the user's job.
-
My apologies. I thought testing was important; guess I was wrong.
-
I'd think that anyone who deliberately deactivates JavaScript, understands the consequence of it.
But on the other hand, I always thought that search engine crawlers browse like a text-only browser without javascript, so that being fail-safe is actually necessary for SEO.
-
I'd think that anyone who deliberately deactivates JavaScript, understands the consequence of it.
And I do. All I ask is for a website to degrade with a bit of grace; it doesn't take much to achieve.But on the other hand, I always thought that search engine crawlers browse like a text-only browser without javascript, so that being fail-safe is actually necessary for SEO.
That used to be the case, but Google will now process the JavaScript when indexing. No idea if Bing does or not though.
-
it doesn't take much
Bootstrap 3's responsiveness doesn't work on IE 7 and 8. We have to support those browsers, a significant portion of our userbase still uses them (they're the kind of people that never upgrade their machines until the machines die and they can't find anyone still selling XP). The devs want to drop support anyway. The final answer is, as long as the site looks okay, it's not so bad if it doesn't respond when you resize your browser, because it's not like mobile devices are using IE8 anyway, and shimming it to work in old IE is work.
-
My apologies. I thought testing was important; guess I was wrong.
Oh, all I have to do is test it and it will magically work, eh?
-
Layout responsiveness is a separate issue, is mostly if not entirely done in CSS with media queries, and has no realistic fallbacks; that doesn't bother me at all. But if your site requires the use of JavaScript, surely it's a lot better to put up a little notice instead of spilling raw HTML into the page, or leaving it entirely white?
-
That is why I keep suggesting cars! Everybody who has enough money gets those!
I didn't get a car
Filed Under: No :trigger: or emote? If I wasn't a lazy jerk, I would request one right now...
-
If you're here just to piss me off, then sod off; I'm not in the mood.
-
-
If you're here just to piss me off, then sod off; I'm not in the mood.
No. I'm here to dispute what you said. If you can't handle the disagreement then stop posting opinions.
-
No, you're just posting ambulance emoji. If you have a counterpoint, then write it out.
-
No. I'm here to dispute what you said. If you can't :hand:le the disagreement then posting s .
I am just here to vandalize your posts!
Filed Under: True story!
-
Already done:
Right, that's the user's job.
Oh, all I have to do is test it and it will magically work, eh?
-
I don't have time for your bullshit. Now fuck off.
-
If you can't handle the disagreement then stop posting opinions.
-
I don't have time for your bullshit.
What's bullshit is intentionally cutting your browser off at the knees and then blaming everyone else for not having wheelchair ramps.
If you run NoScript because you're worried about security, you might as well go full-Stallman and have a service pull down pages and mail them to you (or whatever he's talking about here).
-
Right. You want a fucking argument? You're getting a fucking argument.
It takes ten fucking minutes to put in a single fucking
<noscript>
tag telling the user to fucking turn on fucking JavaScript. But obviously it's too much to fucking ask that people fucking take ten fucking minutes to fucking add that single fucking tag. Instead, they leave their fucking broken-ass shit spilling fucking raw fucking HTML all over the fucking page. And that's assuming it even shows the fucking page.Ten. Fucking. Minutes. And your site won't fucking look like it was fucking coded by fucking cowboys at ten fucking dollars a fucking day.
That fucking good enough for you?
-
That fucking good enough for you?
Fuck yeah! I still don't care enough to spend that 10 minutes, though.
-
Then fuck you and every other cunt who can't be fucking bothered to spend ten fucking minutes to fucking think about basic fucking usability.
-
New change to web page:
<noscript>this site requires JavaScript. If you're one of the last 3 people in the world using a browser from 1996, it's time to upgrade. If you're one of those NoScript types, you'll have to special snowflake elsewhere.</noscript>You should totally complain to the people at sites that don't work without noscript.
-
Then fuck you and every other cunt who can't be fucking bothered to spend ten fucking minutes to fucking think about basic fucking usability.
They thought about usability, that's what they added all that Javascript for.
-
Do you think we could convince Google to get chrome to inject that at the start of every page without a noscript tag?
-
basic fucking usability
...by people who have intentionally made their web experience less useable.
Should cars be usable by people without arms to cater to people who decide they want to drive in a straight jacket?
-
I use a script-blocking extension (ScriptSafe) and I don't mind that much if a website requires JavaScript to work. What I do mind is when the website only works if all of its analytics and advertising crap has loaded.
-
Should cars be usable by people without arms to cater to people
who decide they want to drive in a straight jacketwith BIID?for
-
In going to assume that's a guacomole reference. Keeping well clear of that
-
If you care to read what I was getting on about.
-
I feel like I should know the last two kanji in your longname. 学生? Makes me think of... school?
-
Then fuck you and every other cunt who can't be fucking bothered to spend ten fucking minutes to fucking think about basic fucking usability.
AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!
-
Should cars be usable by people without arms to cater to people who decide they want to drive in a straight jacket?
You should put a note on the steering wheel: "Please remove straight jackets prior to operating vehicle."
-
In the case of my company, we successfully persuade our manager to drop support for IE7/8 because jQuery will no longer support them, and for those still using WinXP, they can move to Chrome/Firefox.
-
Tell us how you really feel...
-
If people want to disable Javascript, that's their choice. Just don't then do the next thing that most noscripters move on to, which is moan about how some website doesn't work when they've turned off an integral part of what makes it work.
If I need to enable JS, I do.
It does hilariously expose so much incompetence though. Like:
- Why is the entire page covered by a 100% x 100% opaque white div that js is expected to hide. Does your page need a grand reveal or something?
- Why are there spans with style underline, and onclick="window.location='http://example.com/page';" ??? Do you not know what a hyperlink is?
- Or worse, why are there hyperlinks with href="#" onclick="window.location..." ??? Do you not know what a hyperlink DOES?
<div id="content" />
followed by a Document Ready function that does something like$("#content").html("<p>This is the content. It is hardcoded here, so it was already sent from the server. Why the fuck am I doing this?</p>")
- UI hacks that could be done through css
<noscript>Our side needs javascript plz run</noscript>
followed by a perfectly functional website (sans ads and trackers)
If a site is unusable without JS, I'll slowly allow js to see what works. Sometimes a site becomes less usable WITH javascript. Example:
- Go to a site. Formatting is a bit wonky. They're probably using js to pull in a css file
- Allow js
- Site format comes back, but all content is hidden by default
- Not allowing some rando ad/tracker script throws a js error that kills some function, which never completes, so it never unhides the js
- this function is usually in the page load, called
dostuff() { doAdvertising(); doTracking(); showContent() }
I can read the page without formatting (or chuck together a quick stylesheet to read it). Or I can check the Google Cache, since it's usually served up and rendered mostly correct. Or I can decide that page isn't worth the effort of reading it's shitty content and move on.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
* Why are there spans with style underline, and onclick="window.location='http://example.com/page';" ??? Do you not know what a hyperlink is?
- Or worse, why are there hyperlinks with href="#" onclick="window.location..." ??? Do you not know what a hyperlink DOES?
They want to hide the URL of the link target, because you wouldn't go to westealallyourpersonalinformation.com if you saw the URL before you clicked it?
@Lorne_Kates said:
I can decide that page isn't worth the effort of reading it's shitty content and move on.
-
You should put a fucking note on the fucking steering wheel: "Please remove fucking straight jackets prior to fucking operating fucking vehicle."
RTFY
-
I use a script-blocking extension (ScriptSafe) and I don't mind that much if a website requires JavaScript to work. What I do mind is when the website only works if all of its analytics and advertising crap has loaded.
Well, it is not unlikely that a website is explicitly designed in such a way that you can only use it as long as you don't try to undermine its business model.
-
And yes, eval() is a level of stupid beyond all others; why that was ever part of the language, I'll never understand.
- Because there is about zillion ways to load and execute some code from string anyway, including, at least in the browser, writing the javascript to the document.
- Because that's how you do any kind of metaprogramming in dynamic languages. Every dynamic language I've ever seen had eval.
That's like trying to write readable Perl code.
Last time I tried it was not appreciated, because the resident code monkeys did not understand packages and objects.
My apologies. I thought testing was important; guess I was wrong.
So did I. But when I tried to find how to simulate a Braille terminal setup to check for accessibility issues I found nothing.
@RaceProUK said:
You still can't guarantee the availability of scripting
Right, that's the user's job.
Users who don't want to provide it have a powerful ally though: the spiders. As far as I can tell, spiders still don't run javascript and ajaxy queries and that kind of crap.
-
Finally, someone who actually fucking gets it.