Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw7 | Hacker News Reader

"You don’t have Javascript enabled. Good luck with that."

You might have gotten a chance at a user. Good luck to you.

First thing I saw, too, before giving them temporary JavaScript execution privilege.

It's one thing to be JavaScript-rendered only. It's another to be impolite to users who happen to constrain JavaScript privileges of yet-untrusted sites. This seems especially relevant since you are attempting to convince an audience to adopt a federated opensource platform. The Venn diagram of people who understand the value of federated platforms has greater than average overlap with those who restrict JavaScript execution in their web browser.

I recommend revising the <noscript> tag to say something like "Please enable JavaScript to read this content. We use JavaScript for the following ... [a brief summary] and we do not use any third-party hosted script." (Incidentally bravo on not using third-party scripts!)

A ticket is now open for it :) https://github.com/movim/movim/issues/737 Will be fixed in the next release.

Thanks a lot for this feedback. Indeed I think that a way better wording for it! I'll see how we can phrase it in a better way :)

    <noscript>
        <style type="text/css">main {display: none;}</style>
        <ul class="list" style="color: white;">
            <li>
                <p class="center">You donve Javascript enabled. Good luck with that.</p>
            </li>
        </ul>
    </noscript>

Wow. Going out of the way to annoy js blockers.

This message was initially added more than 5 years ago and not really changed since then :) The related ticket has been fixed and master is now having a better wording for this message https://github.com/movim/movim/issues/737.

I am more refering to the css. All content is fetched without needing js. But its css hidden because ...

I've created a ticket for it https://github.com/movim/movim/issues/738.

Yes indeed for those static pages we could make an exception. I'll see what I can do.

Seems like the message came from an old SO answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/3926750/221786

Which thousands of developers (blindly?) copied: https://www.google.com/search?q="You+don’t+have+Javascript+e...

I'm not sure that's better than being an original sentence, though.

To people downvoting this comment, I don't think this user was attempting to be overtly snarky despite the obvious throwaway account.

This is, frankly, a rude message to send to someone with a more secure setup. It's off-putting and after I confirmed it to be true, felt the same way.

You didn't build a website with the ability to display without Javascript. Good luck with that.

They're costing themselves what, maybe 1% of possible users for the benefits of a) not having to deal with the other issues that subset of users is bound to have and b) ease of continuing to develop the project.

Consider their install steps; their entire market is just the people who can follow those steps, and a large percentage of those people would be pissed off about the messaging, if not about the fact that you cannot block JS

If the entire market is fickle and opinionated developers, then they've got a bigger problem than whether or not they've got JS enabled.

Ha, but their answer to a similar comment (on another comment thread) is that they are benevolent or some crap like that.

This is just a group of devs looking to pad their resume, not build something for everyone to use. (not that there is anything wrong with that)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com