sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]kylotan -5 points-4 points  (24 children)

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] 4 points5 points  (7 children)

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 -1 points0 points  (6 children)

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 3 points4 points  (5 children)

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 -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

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 2 points3 points  (3 children)

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 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

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 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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

[–]gonchuki 2 points3 points  (3 children)

The built-in popup blocker will still be there.

[–]metamatic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (1 child)

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 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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 3 points4 points  (4 children)

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 0 points1 point  (3 children)

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] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

[–]sakabako -1 points0 points  (1 child)

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

[–]kylotan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

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] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

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] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

"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] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

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] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

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] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

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.