zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. pdw+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-07-14 10:56:22
It's hard to differentiate between completely disabled JavaScript, some individual JavaScript files being blocked by an (overzealous?) ad blocker, and the browser not implementing some required JavaScript feature.
replies(4): >>alias_+j >>zelphi+J >>pluc+d1 >>eis+j3
2. alias_+j[view] [source] 2022-07-14 10:58:51
>>pdw+(OP)
I don't envy web developers, that's a difficult situation.

I still stand by that the error message could be a lot clearer regardless.

replies(1): >>rat998+04
3. zelphi+J[view] [source] 2022-07-14 11:04:22
>>pdw+(OP)
Easily solved, by sticking to web standards and not using any experimental JS features. Still them to blame, not the client browser.
replies(1): >>jefftk+x8
4. pluc+d1[view] [source] 2022-07-14 11:08:30
>>pdw+(OP)
I've been using NoScript for about a month full-time.. and it's insane the things you can leave blocked and still see a site as it's meant to be. Ads, trackers and internal tools that somehow I have to contribute my data to, and their accompanying libraries EASILY make up 70% of all JS.
replies(1): >>sgbeal+z3
5. eis+j3[view] [source] 2022-07-14 11:28:55
>>pdw+(OP)
Actually it's trivial to detect if JS was completely blocked with the <noscript> tag. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/no...

And on the flip side you can trivially detect if some .js file was blocked from loading with some inline <script> tag that checks for whatever the .js file should expose.

The third case with the browser not implementing some feature is a bit more work but usually also rather easy to do.

◧◩
6. sgbeal+z3[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 11:30:36
>>pluc+d1
> Ads, trackers and internal tools that somehow I have to contribute my data to, and their accompanying libraries EASILY make up 70% of all JS.

Citation needed. Literally 100% of the JS code i've written over the past 24 years has been 100% free of "ads, trackers, and internal tools that somehow users have to contributor their data to."

replies(1): >>wolrah+kh
◧◩
7. rat998+04[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 11:33:49
>>alias_+j
The message is clear enough. It's intended for people who don't know much. Not people who mess with the browser features.
◧◩
8. jefftk+x8[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 12:08:00
>>zelphi+J
<script src="https://example.com/js"> is not an experimental web platform feature.
◧◩◪
9. wolrah+kh[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 12:50:33
>>sgbeal+z3
> Citation needed. Literally 100% of the JS code i've written over the past 24 years has been 100% free of "ads, trackers, and internal tools that somehow users have to contributor their data to."

It's a fair assumption that the majority of the code on the internet probably isn't written by you, so what you or any other individual writes isn't exactly a counter-argument.

I'd assume the poster you replied to was referring to the Javascript that gets delivered to their browser on a day to day basis by general purpose web sites, for which a significant percentage being ads and related unwanted content is entirely plausible.

If you were to capture all of the Javascript delivered to a randomly selected person's browser during a normal day I would easily believe somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of that Javascript was things that if the user was given a real choice they would not choose to load.

[go to top]