Warning.js – show respect towards your visitors with this widget
asciimoo.github.io
asciimoo.github.io
Without JavaScript, web pages load in my browser in a fraction of the time—pages just snap into action, even on slow machines. I can go days without ever seeing an ad. For me, ads are 'yesterday'—I simply don't have enough time left in my life to waste it watching junk: web pages are much cleaner looking and much less cluttered; pop-ups are a thing of the past, and I don't have to wait for all those junk links to be sent 'analytics' web servers. And that's only the beginning (and, naturally, there's increased security without JS too).
Couple my JavaScript-free-zone with a few extras such as an ad blocker, and a JavaScript 'black-lister' such as 'YesScript' (which is now a necessity since Wiki screwed up the viewing of images with an irritating bit of JS), and finally one tops it off with a user-agent scrambler. Oh, and I nearly forgot: nowadays, an overlay blocker is also an essential part of the repertoire (overlays being the most recent 'designed' atrocity.
After that, it's all singing and dancing.
(Oh, I remind you that I've not forgotten WebRTC either. Seems this mess is best concoction that these 'geniuses' could dream up to overcome/fix an already stuffed system.
Right, even people with room-temperature IQs can adopt 'the 'used car salesman approach' by just painting over rust.)
That all said, there's still the odd occasion where I have turn on JS but it's infrequent, and when I do, all I need to do is to toggle JS on with one click.
For those who question how I manage with so many roadblocks all I can say is that I don't have a problem with the types of sites that I usually visit. Occasionally, there's an odd irritation such as NASA's site but they're so few they're very manageable. The fact is I don't want junk that pops up and distracts me when I'm reading an article. Here's the well-worn paradigm: if I'm in a library reading a book then its pages don't suddenly start animating with ads and other visual diatribe. Right, I expect my web experience to be just as peaceful.
Many will say I'm a freeloader, well so be it! The way big commercial interests have completely screwed up the web in the last decade or so means that I wouldn't care less if half of them went broke because those like me refused to view their ads—don't forget they stole OUR once-peaceful web space! What truly amasses me is why people have been so tolerant of this JavaScript junk for so long. Are people really so enamored with the crap that JavaScript delivers them? If so, then it's time we developed a second internet for serious users, the kiddies can have this one to themselves (seeing they love it so much).
JavaScript is a pernicious web 'disease' that's been forced on poor unwitting users by mostly commercial interests to maximize profits, the sooner most people realize this the better for all.
Funny isn't it, that the web could be a much more secure place than it is now just by turning off JavaScript. Instead, this 'sacred cow' is so revered that most would rather put up with rotten performance—and even worse, the loss of their data—than to even broach this taboo subject.
1. I've two professions: IT and engineering; putting my engineering cap on, if I'd designed a system that was so horrible, slipshod and malevolent as JavaScript, then very likely I'd be up on negligence charges (someone could be hurt or killed).
W. Wayt Gibbs said in Scientific American in an article titled 'Software's Chronic Crisis' about a quarter century* ago "Despite 50 years of progress, the software industry remains years-perhaps decades-short of the mature engineering discipline needed to meet the demands of an information-age society."
Essentially, he went on to equate the then current state of the software 'art' [art emphasized] in so-called software engineering with the profession of chemistry circa 1800 (on the evidence, he's one of many who hold this view). I'm not directly pointing at you, but the JavaScript problem is the elephant in the room that most don't want to see. Defending the indefensible is not a particularly bright course of action. The IT industry has had a quarter century to fix the problem properly but it's failed to do so—even with WebRTC, we've, at best, only a Rube Goldberg/Heath Robinson—level solution.
I'd suggest software's march towards professionalism in that quarter century is nigh on non-existent. For example, look what compilation [obfuscation] did for the industry: it hid the faults, bugs, multiplied security risks many fold; gave us horrible buggy bloatware like Windows not to mention corruption (Volkswagen, etc.). [I'm mighty glad I have my fallback profession.]
2. What I said and what I outlined above is a prescriptive solution that works well for many people (my hyperbole notwithstanding).
Basically, unless you have to live on JavaScript-ridden sites continually such as social media ones, then the solution not only works well but also there's measurable/quantitative benefits.
In other words, do the math and I'll be proved correct. (Of course, I'm only referring to the user side, owners of web sites are the losers; but then Facebook, Google, et al are already making obscene profits, the likes of which we've never previously seen the equal.)
* SciAm, September 1994; Page 86.