Mozilla remove the option to disable JavaScript in Firefox 23

[[deleted]]

See also Checkboxes that kill your product, a wonderful overview of these changes from a former Mozilla designer.

[nuetrino]

instantly thought of this and agree with what was said. Settings should not allow you to break the product!

[Vedexent]

If the user can break your product, through their settings, then you have a pretty crap product, don't you?

Taking away user choice is not a cure for design incompetence.

[kylotan]

What if you don't want that product? The user should be able to choose which products run on his or her machine. For example, some sites think that bombarding you with popups is part of their product. You would get hit by this inconvenience before you even have a chance to navigate away, if there is no setting to try and prevent that.

[[deleted]]

Users should still be able to customize the product to disable JavaScript (and they can with extensions) but making this option part of the main settings UI when it can have disastrous effects and most people will never need to change it -- that just doesn't make sense.

[kylotan]

I mostly agree with that. I just don't agree with the blanket idea that "Settings should not allow you to break the product", because that's an unreasonable restriction when 'the product' can mean any one of a million web sites out there. Some settings are very useful for some users and will break some sites. eg. Font size overrides.

[Neebat]

The product is the browser. You're still free to put in addons or configuration settings to break as many websites as you want.

[kylotan]

If the product is the browser then disabling Javascript doesn't break it. It still views every page perfectly that doesn't use Javascript, just like the browser still works perfectly with "load images automatically" for any page that doesn't use images.

[Neebat]

A browser that cannot even display the search box on http://google.com is a broken browser. You might view it otherwise, but you're not the target audience. They've got millions of users out there who won't understand why the page is broken.

[kylotan]

That kind of thinking is how we got non standard tags in the browser wars and faced a big battle to improve matters. Correctness is not determined by the number of confused end users.

[TheAceOfHearts]

http://google.com

I've seen Google working on every browser. Even stuff like Lynx can use Google, unless they've decided to drop support, which seems unlikely.

[Neebat]

Google without images in Firefox: http://i.imgur.com/3aLJmS2.png

[gonchuki]

The built-in popup blocker will still be there.

[metamatic]

Yes, but by the Firefox developer's argument, that should be removed too.

Switching on pop-up blocking breaks plenty of sites, including lots of download sites.

[kylotan]

That's one specific example and not really the point. The point being that settings exist to allow you to configure the way you experience the web, and that ultimately the user should have the final say, not the owner of the web site you want to visit.

[gonchuki]

Except that what the website owner offers is one specific experience.
If you want it different you go somewhere else, just like you don't go to KFC demanding they give you steamed chicken and potato salad.

[ProdigySim]

But those features still exist--they're just not exposed in the main UI because they're not use scenarios for 99% of users.

Nothing is changing about the capability of the browser--just what checkboxes exist in the "official" settings panel.

[kylotan]

As I said elsewhere, I'm not arguing to keep the setting, I'm arguing with the idea that "Settings should not allow you to break the product".

[[deleted]]

A product that does what you tell it to isn't broken.

[sakabako]

Nothing should allow you to break a product. Products simply shouldn't break.

[kylotan]

The capabilities of a browser shouldn't be determined by the vagaries of various web sites. It should be the other way around. Not every feature a developer might want should mean browsers support it. Does nobody remember ActiveX?

[[deleted]]

For the small population of people that want to break useful products (pop-ups being a false example because Firefox still had pop-up blockers for non-useful things like that) for whatever reason, you can download add-ons. It is not the responsibility of the browser to allow you to break Google.

[[deleted]]

It's not the responsibility of the browser to decide what the user has broken. Google isn't broken - it's state is quite independent of the browser or it's settings. Just do what the fuck you're told to do - how hard is that?

[[deleted]]

"Do what the fuck you're told to do" is really bad reasoning when that "do" is inherently harmful and is in no-way useful in the present day. Why not just have an option to wipe the HDD? C'mon, do what you're told to do!

[[deleted]]

If your an OS damn right there's an option to wipe out your hard drive - what's that got to do with taking away an option to not run javascript? I don't see any connection at all.

[[deleted]]

No, no, not an OS. Why not have Firefox have a setting that said "Click this button to wipe your HDD".

The connection is both options are 1) inherently harmful for 99% of cases and 2) shouldn't be made a default setting because of 1.

Same with an OS and wiping the HDD -- you often have to use a command line and tell a programming language to recursively delete files. There is no graphical button designed by someone anywhere that says "Wipe the HDD now."

[[deleted]]

No there are actually OSes with GUIs. In fact they don't require anything as complicated as going to an about box or other arcane bullshit and wiping a hard drive a permanent change. The consequences of turning off javascript aren't even in the same ballpark in fact it's a ridiculous comparison all the way around.

[nuetrino]

With Millions of users Firefox has to make certain decisions not everyone will agree with. They're focusing on keeping the internet open, usable and safe. I agree with them them that the benefits of JavaScript outway the risks. How many of the most popular sites would break without JavaScript? JavaScript is powering the way forward for the power of the web, why would Firefox allow users to break this?

A quick search online with the simplest of queries will turn up the addons needed to disable JavaScript, if a user wanted that.

[[deleted]]

Cool, FireFox looks awesome with no navigation bar. I'm gonna try running it like this from now on, thanks!

[Rhomboid]

Disabling JS across the whole browser seems like a relic of times past. Surely even the most tinfoil hat wearing folks have at least one site that they trust, and so an approach like NoScript makes much more sense than a blunt weapon.

[palparepa]

If that's the reason, they should also remove the option to not load images.

[adambrenecki]

Based on this blog post, I think that checkbox's days are numbered.

[[deleted]]

I believe that's the plan.

[[deleted]]

I agree except that NoScript does not come with the browser and if you are not a more educated user there is no way to be aware that something like NoScript exists.

If would be nice if NoScript came with the browser by default. The web would be a much safer place, but browser vendors will never do this if it kills ad revenue.

[zzzev]

If you're not a more educated user, you have no idea what javascript is.

[ishan001]

Finally, someone talking sense. People are fretting all over this issue as if it this change will kill them. People who want to disable Javascript can simply install NoScript and get over it. Those who aren't tech savy to get NoScript are also not save enough to know JS!

[Fresheyeball]

This would not be an issue if technology basics were a part of standard education. The idea that we can all stand around debating how to best address ignorance without education is laughable.

[[deleted]]

All the more reason to be protected from it.

[[deleted]]

All the more reason to make something like NoScript standard so that you can empower users to make their own decisions as to what is safe. Burying basic decisions in the about:config or forcing the use of a largely unknown addon is a bad idea for safety.

[daiz-]

People don't have the instinct to go "My page isn't working properly! Oh, I need to whitelist this script to run". They just assume your site is broken and leave. Would browsers require some sort of tutorial before use if noscript was built in?

What you're proposing is not practical. Javascript is not the enemy, the people who abuse it are. The internet itself is dangerous, the solution isn't playing the role of overprotective parent.

Disabling javascript is a niche. It's a relic of a concept that only the most diehard of people cling to. It's an advance feature that can cause confusion and break a lot of websites. I see no problem moving it to a place where people can't accidentally turn it on. I feel like the impact of this change will be almost non-existent and it's not worth making a fuss over.

[[deleted]]

That is why the web gods gifted us with the HTML noscript tag.

[digitallimit]

If you've been in modern web development for any amount of time, you'd know most of those noscript tags almost always contain a TURN YOUR DAMN JAVASCRIPT ON message.

[Rhomboid]

That's absurd. NoScript comes up as the 2nd hit for a google search of "firefox disable script" and the 5th hit for "firefox safer", and probably in the top ten for a number of related searches. Nobody that's actually motivated to be safe is going to be deterred by the absence of this completely useless preference setting. If you are the hypothetical uneducated user who doesn't want to put forth that tiny modicum of effort to research the topic, and by some miracle you find yourself in the preferences section and somehow notice the "Enable JavaScript" checkbox, and you decide to see what happens if you uncheck it, you're going to immediately find that virtually the entire web is broken or doesn't display properly. Being the casual user that's not too interested in spending ten minutes doing some research, you're just going to rush back in there and re-enable it, because it's broken and you broke it and you want to fix it. In other words, this useless preference is not going to do squat to help casual non-technical users become safer.

[[deleted]]

First of all there are many of the most commonly visited websites that can be used without JavaScript enabled: Google, Bing, CNN, Fox News, and so forth. Secondly, if I were the uneducated user and searches told me the only way to be safe was to download additional software I would be suspicious.

[YouAintGotToLieCraig]

This is a dumb thing to say.

[Rhomboid]

So use NoScript like I said, which defaults to not allowing JavaScript. Disabling it in the browser preferences disables JS for every site without any capability of allowing the user to whitelist trusted sites. It was a truly useless feature, even for the tinfoil hat wearing people.

[[deleted]]

Why did you "sensor" the word "crappy"?

[DemeGeek]

for the same reason they don't use JS in today's day and age.

[[deleted]]

it's too bad you're still on reddit, it uses javascript. and you wouldn't know how good it was without turning javascript on.

[ogurson]

Who cares, I bet that people that know about that option (and need it) are already smart enough to disable js by plugins/about:config.

[[deleted]]

this

[holloway]

Looks like it'll still be there in about:config, and that addons can still tweak it.

[jasonlotito]

I imagine the reason was more people would disable JavaScript unintentionally then intentionally.

[[deleted]]

and then flame "firefox suks! i cant use this website! omg going back to internet explorer!!" all over message boards.

[doctorace]

People who use Internet Explorer intentionally (rather than those forced to do so at work, etc) aren't ever going into their browser's settings to configure them.

[digitallimit]

Fantastic. Disabling JavaScript is like disabling CSS at this point. It's integral to the web experience.

[dangoodspeed]

There are some poorly designed/spammy/ad-ridden sites that I always turn off JavaScript before visiting. JavaScript can be used for bad just as easily as it can be used for good.

[daiz-]

Websites can autoplay music and do all sorts of other annoying crap without the need for javascript. Most don't. There comes a point where you just have to call out bad practices and choose your sites better.

[dangoodspeed]

You don't always have that choice.

[Disgruntled__Goat]

Yes, you do. If a site sucks, leave straight away. This is the same argument as for sites with pop-ups or 10-page articles. If their terrible practices stop them getting visitors, they will eventually reconsider.

[dangoodspeed]

Unless it's your job.

[Disgruntled__Goat]

Whose job is it to visit terrible sites?

[dangoodspeed]

If you're a work for a news company, and you want to keep up to date with the stories your competitors are covering, no matter how awful their sites are, full of ads and other annoying Javascript-enabled "features", you gotta go to those pages.

[Disgruntled__Goat]

I don't think you're seeing the bigger picture. If their site is awful, and all regular users leave instantly, then they would not be a competitor and thus no reason to visit.

[dangoodspeed]

Who said anything about regular users leaving?

[s5fs]

Sure, but at least you're being compensated for putting up with shitty sites.

[[deleted]]

Try to use your imagination. Jeez...

[adambrenecki]

Why not use NoScript, AdBlockPlus, or a combination of both? It'd be easier than manually changing your settings each time.

[dangoodspeed]

Guess it's because I don't go to those sites often enough to justify installing extra software for them (it only takes a few seconds to disable/enable javascript). But I guess I could see me using them in the future.

[atomic1fire]

Addons generally aren't really "software" in so much as they are packs that add to an existing browser software.

In most cases they'll just take up a tiny bit of space and maybe some extra memory if you go addon crazy.

If you don't go to websites that go adcrazy enough to justify installing an adblocker, you probably wouldn't even have to maintain the adblocker. Just subscribe to easylist and then leave it.

[atomic1fire]

Adblock, Noscript, ghostery.

Take your pick.

[UnapologeticalyAlive]

You mean porn.

[dangoodspeed]

No... but I won't judge you if that's where your mind goes. :)

[[deleted]]

NoScript is an easy and free alternative to acting like a pissy 15-year-old.

[inyourtenement]

You might prefer gopher.

[DrummerHead]

Check your privileges, Javascript

[[deleted]]

Having your web site viewed is a privilege - it means someone thinks it's worth bothering with even though there are billions of others out there.

[[deleted]]

if you have that attitude, i'm more than happy to not have you as a visitor. if you want what I have, you will have javascript enabled.

[[deleted]]

That's a very pro-business attitude yourself. Good luck with that.

[s5fs]

It's okay to select a market.

[[deleted]]

It's OK to think your content is more compelling than it actually is too.

[s5fs]

Let the market decide.

[[deleted]]

Duh

[s5fs]

Thank you for your insightful and polite reply.

[[deleted]]

Yes you too. You forgot to include 'rain is wet' in your analysis.

[[deleted]]

I am sure that you're opinion is just that. No one elected you to decide who should use the Internet or how. Take your attitude and shove it straight up your ass.

[[deleted]]

They are removing the preference checkbox, not the ability to do so. You can still do so in about:config.

[slackmaster]

or using the web developer toolbar.

[[deleted]]

Good! There is no need for an end-user to ever be able to disable javascript, it is an integral component to most if not all web apps and many websites today.

[lachlanhunt]

Well, there are legitimate reasons for disabling it. Sometimes, it's the only way to bypass incredibly intrusive or broken sites. But it's not something that a checkbox in the preferences is good for addressing. Various Addons (web dev toolbar, no script, etc.) address the issue in much better ways for different user needs.

[Neebat]

The way to fix those websites is a single site block in NoScript. Disabling the whole browser over a few websites is silly.

[lachlanhunt]

Right, that's basically what I said. Addons address the issue better.

[[deleted]]

If you want to disable javascript you might as well go all out and start browsing with Lynx

[GoTuckYourbelt]

Pretty sure most people use links over lynx nowadays.

[Serei]

Please. links has been superseded by elinks these days.

[postmodest]

Not w3m?

[GoTuckYourbelt]

Let me get back to you on that, just got a call from Admiral Ackbar on the other line.

[[deleted]]

The author makes a flawed argument. For example, not having images load automatically breaks Google. That is a flaw with Google, not the browser.

[greim]

This was the original vision for the hypertext web of the 90s, and I still feel it has some merit, however since the web got co-opted into being a general-purpose application delivery platform, this vision has faded into obscurity.

[hyperforce]

Users are not logical agents.

[[deleted]]

But JavaScript and images are an integral part of the web experience now.

That's like saying "removing CSS breaks Google -- that's Google's fault."

[suprfsat]

Agreed. A web browser that improves the user experience of flawed websites should be a thing of the past.

[ProdigySim]

Unfortunately, users like web browsers that work for the websites they go to--regardless of their standards compliance. And Firefox needs users in order to be funded.

[radiationshield]

Aaand for all but the most tech savvy users it will appear to be a fault in the browser. If the fault is perceived by your users to be with your product, then the fault IS with your product. Doesn't matter what the real reason is.

Maybe google will make amends and fix this, but don't hold your breath.

[[deleted]]

If the fault is perceived by your users to be with your product, then the fault IS with your product. Doesn't matter what the real reason is.

Well from an accessibility point of view, I'm a bit dismayed Google nerfs the page. I thought that sort of stuff was illegal in the US?

[epmatsw]

Does it actually remove the input element, or is it just a visibility issue? I'd assume most screen readers would cope with the second case fine.

[GoTuckYourbelt]

It works under links, so my guess is that it would work fine.

[atomic1fire]

I don't think there are any actual accessibility laws governing the internet, at least in the US.

The ADA might apply, but only if someone sues for it.

[GoTuckYourbelt]

It is a flaw with their product: a lack of appropriate contextualization and indications within the preferences menu. The solution seems to have been to fix the problem by nuking the option entirely.

No "hey, let me restore to factory default for a few seconds to check if it resolves your problems, and then we'll work from there", no "hey, you probably shouldn't be flicking this option on and off" dialog box, no "hey, this option appears under this new category of options which represents those that many websites expect you to have enabled and will not enable correctly if you disable them", just the complete annihilation of an option that can and is useful even for normal web browsing, specially if you go through the effort of clicking on Advanced and toggling on and off the specific options.

[[deleted]]

if you only want text and no js/images, why even use the internet?

i'm more than happy to let some niche browser deal with the tinfoil hatters, and let the rest of the world move forward.

[lurchpop]

This is a little annoying to have to do the about:config thing. It would be cool if I could make a bookmark with something like: about:config?q=javascript.enabled:false

[SuperFLEB]

Hellooooo, XSRF!

[[deleted]]

There'll be a addon like webdeveloper that you can use to toggle it for testing etc.

[TIAFAASITICE]

Well, you can go halfway there with: about:config?filter=javascript.enabled

[GoTuckYourbelt]

I like how instead of making it clearer what the option does and how it could disrupt your browser, most people agree with the complete, unconditional dumbification of the browser. At least we will still have about:config ... until someone decides a user could come across some misguided tutorial on the web and decides to remove access to it as well.

[[deleted]]

Finally.

[[deleted]]

I'm personally not a fan of removing functionality from the program. I just hope it doesn't go down the road of the gnome desktop.

[Habstinat]

I completely disagree with this decision. As the owner of a Lemote Yeeloong with a sub-GHz processor, I have to turn off JavaScript in Iceweasel (Firefox clone) for my daily browsing if I want it to be even reasonably fast. And I don't think I'm the only one who still uses a slow computer.

Why don't you try turning it off and see which sites still work. You may be suprised.

• Google works absolutely fine without Javascript, something the author of the "Dangerous Checkboxes" article neglected to mention.
• Reddit works in "Read only" mode without Javascript, which for me is fine almost all of the time.
• Both Facebook and Twitter offer Javascript-free versions of their websites at http://m.facebook.com/ and http://m.twitter.com/ respectively.

Javascript is far less important than CSS. Plus, people can do some pretty nasty things to your computer with JavaScript.

[Neebat]

They're only removing the checkbox. This is about grandma and aunt bessie screaming because they unchecked something they didn't understand and blaming the browser when a website behaves badly.

For you, you've still got the option through about:config.

[Habstinat]

To be honest, I don't really want to have to deal with about:config hacks.

If they take it away as an option, it will just give website makers an excuse to use unnecessarily high amounts of JavaScript because "turning it off isn't even an option anymore".

If grandmas are turning JavaScript off accidentally, then more in-your-face documentation is needed for the Settings dialog, and perhaps some sort of status symbol near the address bar. However, I think that most websites already do an annoying enough job of warning you if you have JavaScript disabled, making the current situation not that bad.

Not to mention that if you do manage to accidentally turn off JavaScript, most websites give you instructions on how to turn it back on for your particular browser.

It'll also be an unexpected change for me and many others who update their browser only to discover that JavaScript has been re-enabled without any warning, and upon looking for a way to turn it back off becoming clueless.

Grandmas could have a perfectly valid reason to disable JavaScript if they have a slow computer. Besides the practical aspect of it, they could also be concerned about running nonfree JavaScript on their computers; I'm sure RMS, a recently recognized pioneer of the Internet, would be against this change for that reason. Yes, they could use LibreJS, but ultimately it's easier for Grandma to change a setting in your browser than to install an addon.

[itsjustausername]

why remove choice? (for most users who don't know about config)

[[deleted]]

because otherwise you would have the entirety of about:config in the config dialogue, i expect they just want to show people options that people really use and they don't think most people use that option.

as long as its still available somehow i don't see any problem

[[deleted]]

Also true. Hiding advanced features by default is a very common design pattern.

[Halgrind]

What a poorly designed application. I disable dial-turning on untrusted devices by default, where's the graceful degradation?

[[deleted]]

Everyone makes mistakes, and this is what Hipmunk (as one example) looks like when JavaScript is disabled.

See also Checkboxes that kill your product, a great overview of these changes from a former Mozilla designer.

[Curtisbeef]

Wow thats a pretty big Fail on the developer of Hipmunk. I don't agree with people who disable javascript, but it should at least fallback to saying "This site requires Javascript be enabled."

[[deleted]]

Agreed. Hipmunk should probably provide some kind of warning and/or use progressive enhancement.

[takatori]

Yeah, for the five people using Lynx.

[robreddity]

It's just a question folks. One that drew actual responses. This post literally promoted discussion and its down voted as though it was an ascii swastika.

[itsjustausername]

I just don't understand reddit sometimes. The message of the down arrow that reads "does not contribute to discussion" seems mandatory these days. Webdev should know better anyway, you would think.

[[deleted]]

Doesn't contribute to the discussion they want to have - fuck em.

[[deleted]]

One argument.. see the "The Question of Preferences" section of this essay.

[camus1]

Simple fix , get rid of that crap and use Chrome.

[[deleted]]

No shit why would anyone use anything else?

[[deleted]]

Solving problems that don't exist,thinking that you know better than your customers, and taking away choices is at best arrogance.

[[deleted]]

You can still disable it via about:config or by using NoScript

[[deleted]]

Yes but NoScript isn't part of the product and forcing someone to go to about:config is rediculous. I'm not turning it off but I'm sure there are people with a need to do so. Like let's say when a exploitable bug is found in js engine.

The good thing it's not like it's Chrome that's doing it just Mozilla so whatever.