Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Welcome to the Monastery

I mostly browse with JavaScript...

by tye  (Monk)
on Aug 09, 2003 at 23:14 UTC ( #282510=poll: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

Vote on this poll

Enabled everywhere
[bar] 172/37%
Disabled everywhere
[bar] 30/6%
Disabled only for selected sites
[bar] 10/2%
Enabled only for selected sites
[bar] 28/6%
Disabled, enable when needed
[bar] 29/6%
Enabled but block pop-ups
[bar] 152/33%
Enabled but block other features
[bar] 42/9%
463 total votes
Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: I mostly browse with JavaScript... (source)
by tye (Sage) on Aug 09, 2003 at 23:24 UTC

    Thanks to Coruscate for Re: poll ideas quest which inspired this poll. I felt his choices were too specific to a limited set of browser(s). I tried for a more generic set of options (but may have failed).

    Note that "Disabled, enable when needed" is meant to include having two different browsers, one with JS, one without and picking between the two depending on what you are doing.

                    - tye

      Note that "Disabled, enable when needed" is meant to include having two different browsers, one with JS, one without and picking between the two depending on what you are doing.

      What about people who use prefbar to enable JavaScript only when needed? It takes a single click to enable or disable features with this nice toolbar. It's not two different browsers, but it does fit the "Disabled, enable when needed" description.

      I usually browse with JS enabled. But when JS slows down a site, or is used for annoying things like text that follows the mouse, scrolling titles or statusbar texts, I disable it by unchecking a checkbox. I have Java disabled, but when needed it can be enabled with a similar checkbox. Etcetera... :)

      Juerd # { site => '', plp_site => '', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

        No, when I said it "includes" having 2 browsers, I certainly didn't, well, exclude "disabled, enable when needed" from "Disabled, enable when needed".

        But you raise a good point. That should also include "enabled, disable when needed", which is a configuration I hadn't considered. (:

                        - tye

      I prefer browsing with Opera 7. It has a quick preference menu under F12 which allows you to:

      • accept/refuse/background/ accept requested popups
      • enable/disable animated gifs, plugins, javascript, java and audio
      • enable/disable proxy support/ referrer logging / cookies
      • change your useragent string.

      So, no need for 2 browsers :P

        I have two problems with opera (even though I'm using an earlier version of opera now), is that some of the 'corporate' web site which I need to use, require an early version of netscape, which opera doesn't proppery render. Also, requring to buy a new version every year at 35 bucks a pop gets expensive. Plus, for a long time, it didn't have support for imap protocol which I use heavily at work. (begining to get off topic here...)

        deliria, very well said. I've used Opera since pre-5.x days and that's one of the best features it's got. I like being able to disable pretty much any animation/scripting at the click of a few keys and then being able to re-enable after whatever it is has been done.

        As for 'not killing popups', that's where Opera shines in my book. "Only allow requested" in Opera lets through those I want, such as phpBB login/pm windows and the like. All the others can rot! I also use the email client in Opera, which knocks out 99.99% of the "viruses" that are spread through Outlook* (I'm refering to .vbs and other macro viruses).

      You are quite welcome tye. I thought myself that the options were too specific. It was difficult choosing because of lovely browsers such as Opera/Mozilla that allow you to pick specific options to enable/disable.

      It is disturbing to see that most people are running around with it turned on :| Myself, I am now back to using IE (as I have reinstalled my windowsx xp home), which only allows enable/disable as one option. I'll be installing Opera soon of course. But for the moment, my answer is to disable it unless it is needed. Which then requires a very simple sequence to enable/disable it {sigh}:

      Disable JavaScript:
      alt+t, alt+o, shift+tab, right arrow, alt+c, END key, PAGE UP, (up arrow) x 4, spacebar, ENTER, y, ENTER, ctrl+r

      Enable Javascript:
      alt+t, alt+o, shift+tab, right arrow, alt+c, END key, PAGE UP, (up arrow) x 3, spacebar, ENTER, y, ENTER, ctrl+r

      If the above content is missing any vital points or you feel that any of the information is misleading, incorrect or irrelevant, please feel free to downvote the post. At the same time, please reply to this node or /msg me to inform me as to what is wrong with the post, so that I may update the node to the best of my ability.

Re: I mostly browse with JavaScript...
by vek (Prior) on Aug 10, 2003 at 18:08 UTC

    Enabled but block pop-ups, thanks to Mozilla.

    -- vek --

      Just a week or two ago I wouldn't have even understood why this is an interesting Vote. However thanks to Petruchio's home node and some hand-holding by ybiC I now know enough to keep it switched off when I'm out on the wild side of the 'Net.

      Thanks folks.


      Well said!

      I also block undesidered banners with it! Unfortunately, you can't block shockwave banners, and images that are in a subspace of the same web site you are viewing. I hope that it will be possible to filter shokwave's, and to filter banners by URL and not only by web site (e.g.: have blocked but all other images from displayed).


      The very nature of Perl to be like natural language--inconsistant and full of dwim and special cases--makes it impossible to know it all without simply memorizing the documentation (which is not complete or totally correct anyway).
      --John M. Dlugosz

        The Mozilla Firebird browser can block banner ads using CSS level 3 properties. Go here to set it up. It can do what you asked for.

        On a related note to Bunnyman's post, there's also a useful little plugin for Firebird (it might work with Mozilla as well, I don't know) that replaces flash animation with a "Click here to play flash..." box. I find it especially useful when a site is determined to force feed me their stupid flash animations and I'm logged in to my main box from another city using my laptop and (slow) DSL service.

        Grant me the wisdom to shut my mouth when I don't know what I'm talking about.

Re: I mostly browse with JavaScript...
by tbone1 (Monsignor) on Aug 11, 2003 at 15:47 UTC
    "Pfft!" to pop-ups, I say. I have JavaScript enabled fully, but popups are blocked thanks to Camino and Safari. Hm, and there's a new version of Omniweb that I need to check out when I get a chance.

    In fact, I've found them to be more IE compliant than IE is. Funny that.

    Ain't enough 'O's in 'stoopid' to describe that guy.
    - Dave "the King" Wilson

Re: I mostly browse with JavaScript...
by arthas (Hermit) on Aug 12, 2003 at 13:03 UTC

    I have JavaScript fully enabled on my browser. I'm not killing popups either, some might even be useful... ;-)


Re: I mostly browse with JavaScript...
by Dog and Pony (Priest) on Aug 14, 2003 at 00:05 UTC
    I have JavaScript turned on, except for popup blocking and some other small things that Firebird allows, such as stopping scripts from faking stuff in the status bar and such. Some sites I frequent use popups for their message system which is kinda stupid, but those go in a whitelist, so no problem there.

    The whole notion that javascript should be disabled by default on every site is pretty strange to me. Yes, on this very site javascript could be used to take control over someones account (as I even demonstrated hands on in some thread after a "put your money where your mouth is" challenge). But this site is a rare bird in that it allows user posted HTML and javascript pretty much unchecked, *and* it uses a login cookie that is not session based. Session based cookies aren't safe either, but sessions can be timed out.

    Sites with this kind of system and especially that combination is rare however, so for almost any other place this is not an issue. Disabling it on this site might be a good idea though, if nothing else because some home nodes likes to annoy people severely because their owners has some kind of JS-hate. I don't mean the friendly warnings about the security, but rather the ones that crash browsers or popup a million windows/popups and such. Pretty silly.

    I rarely use JS myself, but used right, it can really enhance a site, and in a much better way that those stupid flash sites that just makes sites hard to use. Flash is good for games and funny movies, nothing else IMO. :) Like any technology, there are good and bad uses.

    As a side note, JScript (the MS version) and VBScript and all that crap has at least in the past shown to be very dangerous beasts, with severe security issues and the possibility to write a virus on a web page. Having those disabled is probably still a good idea, and I suggest doing that by not using IE. Finally, the replacements such as Firebird is actually better in all respects, not just better morally, philosophically and in some areas such as popup blocking and security. So no excuse to be on IE still. Apart from some special sites, though Firebird works nice at my bank too, and no site I've wanted to visit the last few months have required IE anymore. Happy me. :)

    You have moved into a dark place.
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
      The whole notion that javascript should be disabled by default on every site is pretty strange to me.

      I have JavaScript completely disabled by default. When I find a site that "doesn't work", I consider how much I trust the site and how much I suspect I'll value what the site has to offer and decide whether to forget about the site, browse their javascript to see what kind of stupid things they are doing, or just turn on javascript and try again.

      In the vast majority of cases, the javascript is extremely stupid. It warps the user interface in ways that I find annoying or even obnoxious, is often buggy, leads people to leave their servers more vulnerable (expecting the javascript to protect them). What would have been a simple, nearly trivial, clean, consistant interface w/o javascript (such as a simple link or a form with one or just a few fields) turns into something that doesn't work at all w/o javascript and works according to the quirky, inconsistant notions of the particular "web designer" and is often broken even with javascript (especially if you have a different version than the one they tested with, I presume).

      This has everything to do with the quality/character of "web designer" that produced the page. However, I find that the vast majority of sites are poorly designed when it comes to javascript, usually extremely poorly designed. (The sites that manage to succeed and become popular are usually much better. To take one example, how could Wendy's have produced such a horribly broken web site??)

      I also don't assume that javascript is totally secure. There certainly have been security holes in the past. I think such gets very little attention these days due to MicroSoft's great talent at providing ways to propogate malware. But when surfing, it is very easy to suddenly end up on the very wrong side of the web (with just a single click, usually from google). I don't care to just allow any bozo who can figure how to get listed high enough on a google search to run his code on my computer, no matter how cleverly some people think they've sandboxed the code.

      I like knowing the difference between data and code. I like having wide access to other people's data. I don't like having to run every random bozo's code in order to see their data. I felt that way long before javascript and Outlook existed. And I like the idea of letting the browser customize the interface instead of having every bozo express their individuality by changing the way their site behaves *when other people visit it*.

      Isn't it telling that an entire industry has been created for the purpose of disabling parts of javascript? I'm glad you found product(s) for that which satisfy you. On the several occasions that I've looked, I wasn't satisfied with anything I found. Note that that includes browsers that people have raved about in exactly the tones you just used. So, no, I don't run out to try a new browser every time someone tells me yet again what would be a great alternative. I make such attempts with decreasing frequency with each failure/disappointment. So I'll try again eventually, but certainly not this month.

      My bank does a decent job of using javascript to let me do on-line banking (and they still do dumb things to the user interface, but they tend to slowly improve). And I think they'd do an even better job if they used much less javascript. So I'm not saying I want to ban all javascript, just 99.8% of it. (:

                      - tye
        Isn't it telling how HTML was originally conceived with the concept in mind that the reader's user agent should decide how the marked up information should be presented? I don't mind the "webdesigner" making a (strong) suggestion at how their content is best looked at, but I find it indescribably annoying when they try to impose their views on me (the worst are sites that open in fixed-size popups with all controls hidden).

        Makeshifts last the longest.

Re: I mostly browse with JavaScript...
by vili (Monk) on Aug 11, 2003 at 16:43 UTC
    Its unfortunate that i need to enable java for online banking.
      Which has nothing to do with JavaScript, except maybe a confusingly similar name chosen by marketroids.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

        how so? their html source is full of <script language=javascript>
        tags, with all due respect, I think it just might have something to do with it

        Celebrate Zaraday
Re: I mostly browse with JavaScript...
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 13, 2003 at 20:30 UTC
    I always have JavaScript enabled, the same as with Perl :-)
Re: I mostly browse with JavaScript...
by chacham (Prior) on Apr 29, 2015 at 13:17 UTC

    Over a decade later and this poll is still just as relevant. Other than NoScript and Adblock Plus (and its progeny), have we made any progress?

      Yes, the question now makes sense on the server, too.
      لսႽ ᥲᥒ⚪⟊Ⴙᘓᖇ Ꮅᘓᖇ⎱ Ⴙᥲ𝇋ƙᘓᖇ

View List Of Past Polls

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others imbibing at the Monastery: (4)
As of 2023-09-28 07:02 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found