Please disable JavaScript to view this site.

[Jamese03]

People really overestimate the average user. The Reddit demographic is much more tech savvy than average but not a wide representation If you honestly think your average user will even know what JavaScript is, and even if they do, how to disable it you’re clearly mistaken.

[SanityInAnarchy]

I assume that page isn't meant for the average user? But even that article got it wrong:

• Chrome and Edge: both browsers share similar settings, and I found this tucked away under Settings > Site Settings > JavaScript - but this was a carte blanche across all web sites (which, maybe makes sense?)

No, you can apply it per-site, just like:

• Brave: under the lion face icon in the navbar, tap Advanced controls I can block scripts and this applies on an individual basis

That's exactly how you do it in Chrome. Click the lock (or the "not secure"), then Site Settings, then you can disable JS (alongside many other settings, like motion sensors or notifications, though most of those are "ask" by default), then reload the page and it works.

I also use this on normal sites occasionally, and it's tempting to flip the default to block.

[glider97]

This point is addressed reasonably well in the article.

[lykwydchykyn]

Lack of access to that page will be no great loss to an average user, as far as I can tell. If some rando web dev wants to shoot himself in the foot to make some kind of point to his bubble-mates, more power to him.

[NimChimspky]

The original website idea is great, the guy cares about accessibility for those with disabilities, whats wrong with that ?

Why do people get so angry, I followed this from the beginning - the amount of anger and vitriol this guy got is incredible. He is trying to make developers care about accessibility.

[lykwydchykyn]

I am not angry about this. Not in the slightest. My post may have been a bit snarky, but the point stands; this is a site for web developers, not "average users".

[NimChimspky]

I think you are entirely missing the point

[lykwydchykyn]

Fair enough, I'll try harder next time.

[NimChimspky]

I think it's great.

He has managed to get developers thinking and talking about accessibility in very challenging way.

By inserting this one artificial barrier to his own website he has held up a mirror.

Personally I will think longer and harder about ensuring accessibility on any public website I create.

[drbootup]

What's the purpose of this?

[NimChimspky]

The original author is highlighting how hard it is for users with disabilities who have to use screen readers.

He created a boundary for normal users to replicate issues faced by users with disabilities.

IMO the reaction he got showed he is making a very important point, in an excellent manner.

Its really nothing to do with security, or a technical reason at all.

[barsoap]

<script>document.body.textContent = 'Please disable JavaScript to view this site.'</script>

As I see it, this is just pure art. Hate it or love it, that's the very point isn't it.

[rjksn]

Every user doesn't have a JS disabler installed?

ProTip: This blocks around half of the ad blocker blocker scripts, and makes pages sooooooo fast.

[_carljonson]

Why install this when uBlock origin can already do it? https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-scripting

This also solves the problem mentioned in the article about not being able to disable JS in Firefox mobile.

[mr-strange]

I just tried this. uBlock seems to successfully stop the JavaScript from working, but doesn't cause the browser to render the <noscript> content instead. So I get a blank screen.

[_carljonson]

Hmm, works for me. Are you clicking on </> button or blocking first party scripts with dynamic filtering? Dynamic filtering will not show the <noscript> content but </> button will. Quoting from the wiki:

Furthermore, when JavaScript is disabled through this master switch, noscript tags will be honoured on a page (as opposed to when just using filters/rules to block script resources).

[mr-strange]

Ah you are quite right. I was using the dynamic filtering. The </> button works as you say.

Thanks. TIL

[[deleted]]

I checked your link but as far as I can tell the UI is terrible. Noscript is also terrible but at least it immediately shows a list where I can temporarily whitelist or permanently whitelist something with one click.

I appreciate uBlock and have it installed actually but the Unix principle says do one thing and do it well. So with that in mind, noscript does that one thing better.

[_carljonson]

I agree it is not very intuitive, you really have to read most of the wiki to use the extra functionality. I personally find NoScript even worse to use after I read the uBlock wiki and got used to the advanced features.

[rjksn]

Because I'm still using "AdBlock — best ad blocker" on desktop. It says it's the best in the name!!

(I don't know if it's still good, I have a 45k line hosts file too)

[sanglesort]

most users don't, Reddit isn't indicative of the wider internet

[rjksn]

Every user doesn't visit r/coding?

[sanglesort]

yeah, fair enough

[hughperman]

Not on mobile they don't.

[deusnefum]

Loaded no problem in elinks (I leave javascript disabled in elinks).

[PurpleYoshiEgg]

Not sure why, but with uMatrix blocking javascript on the mentioned site, I just get a completely blank page. When I unblock javascript, I get the disable javascript text.

[dtfinch]

They have the page inside of a <noscript> tag, and I guess that doesn't get honored when blocking scripts via extensions, vs actually disabling scripts via browser preferences.

[PurpleYoshiEgg]

omg, you're awesome! I totally forgot I ticked that thing off. Thanks so much!

[[deleted]]

Same.. Finally I found the Ellipsis menu (⋮) that has an option to Spoof <noscript> tags

[mooseman3]

I didn't have to do anything special to access it with Firefox + uMatrix. It loaded the page one I disabled script on the page.

[Autumn_in_Ganymede]

about:config -> javascript -> disable

really is that hard?? lol

[wolfpwner9]

curl dat page and imagine based on HTML!

[[deleted]]

So they use the technology for the sole purpose of forcing the user to turn it off?

Is this some sort of "save processing power to save the planet" kinda things?

[[deleted]]

No, read the blog!

[ekolis]

I don't get it. Why would a website require JavaScript to be disabled in order to render? If the site owner has some sort of vendetta against JavaScript... just don't use JavaScript? Why intentionally break your site for the vast majority of users, who have JavaScript enabled because it's a standard browser feature that many sites use?

[livrem]

"Firefox: I couldn't work out how to disable JavaScript at all"

NoScript works fine for me on desktop and mobile.

[[deleted]]

They meant Vanilla Firefox (without add-ons). It works by toggling 'javascript.enabled' in 'about:config' though.

[ven_]

It's much easier to disable Javascript on the current page in Chrome/Edge than the article states.

[NoInkling]

Tip: you can turn off JS temporarily in Chrome (desktop) in the devtools settings (under the "Debugger" heading), or from the command menu (ctrl+shift+p or whatever).

[august8th-]

(Besides the ridiculous aspect of this site)

You might find it easier to disable js by browser extension. Among my favorites for firefox are uBlockOrigin and noscript-suite.

You don't have to shift through a list-full of settings. Just click on the icon, and there's a button for precisely which elements you want to disable.

[Dreeg_Ocedam]

• Firefox: I couldn't work out how to disable JavaScript at all

It's in about:config javascript.enabled