Exactly. I never understood all these "I don't enable js" comments. You kinda usually don't need to disable js on sites that are usable without js. And if you feel the urge to disable it, it is most likely that without js it's an empty page anyway.
More than that, it drives home the need to disable JavaScript by default. To do otherwise is inviting every web site you visit (and every third-party site they load content from, and everyone who can compromise either) to run arbitrary code on your system.
And it drives home the stupidity of sites which demand JavaScript to view even simple content which could just as well be static.
I have JS off by default and on for a very small whitelist of highly trusted sites that I'm forced to use and don't work without it. Look at it this way: probably 99% or more of browser exploits depend on JS, but far fewer sites than that won't actually be completely unusable without it, so with JS off I've eliminated a huge attack vector while only compromising my ability to use sites by a smaller amount (and chances are, if I come across a site from a search and it doesn't show anything because it requires JS, I'll just go to the next result). The tradeoff is well worth it IMHO.
I keep JS disabled by default and only enable it in certain situations.
If your site doesn't work without JS and I try to view it I am probably just going to leave.
Yeah, it struck me as extremely disingenuous; while I like the other benefits, I disable JS mostly because I hate being tracked and noticed that many (most?) browser exploits require JS to run.
I agree with Paul. A website that does not function without JS is a poor design choice. I have JS disabled by default and only whitelist specific domains.
If your website content doesn't load up, there's a good chance I'm not sticking around unless it's imperative.
I have js disabled by default for years now, mainly because for the type of content I randomly access, the percieved speed is a whole lot faster. E.g. I can start reading an article immediatly instead of waiting for content to stop jumping around or watching a spinner while a couple 100 kloc worth of js load an convert a bunch text in json to a bunch of text in html.
As an additional bonus I can get trough reading an entire article without newsletter signup modals being shoven down my throat.
For sites I use regularly and I as a user benefit from more interactivity not just the advertisers, I hit the toggle switch to activate js.
But I dont think this is a particularly popular or that common a perspectice. If it werent for fear of a SEO penalty the web would be much less usable without js activated.
I spent several months with JS off by default. I relented after one too many broken sites. Since then, I've suffered from sites with HTML popups, autoplaying videos, and not one, but two "subscribe to my newsletter" prompts which trigger when you move your mouse to the address bar.
Disabling JS by default severely reduces the ability of websites to pull user-hostile tricks (though it breaks web apps). No website (presenting static information to be consumed) should ever break with JS off, and any site that does is defective. I won't extend this to web apps (interactive dynamic functionality like Google Docs) though.
I havent had js on by default in years. Using a js enabled browser is a drastically worse experience.
suckless surf lest you enable js with a hotkey on a per-process basis if you really want it for something, but 90% of the time, I just close the tab that wants to waste my time.
If someone else chooses to disable JS by default, it impacts the rest of us in exactly 0 ways, so what's the problem? Certainly you can see the potential upsides, better performance, faster load times, most ads won't work, less 3rd party tracking, etc.
you seen to spend time here, so you'd pay the security price and that's it.
not having js on by default is for the 95pct of domains you hit everyday to read a single paragraph and never return.
reply