bugzilla.mozilla.org
Having this option probably causes more harm than good when someone accidentally disables JavaScript and then the web stops working for them in Firefox.
Reproducible: Always
Those bastards!
I'm happy for sane defaults and hidden options, but hiding the option for turning javascript on or off seems a bit much. Maybe they have numbers showing most people leave it turned on?
It's interesting that Javascript has a dialog box in the browser options, but other stuff (flash; etc) doesn't.
[1] evil is perhaps hyperbole, but I don't like extensions.
It is a personal preference and I probably can't justify it if pushed.
Specifically for javascript: that's part of the browser, it's not an extension. So configuring it should really also be part of the browser. I prefer Firefox's approach to settings than Google's.
Maybe Firefox needs a better warning when someone goes into the config; it wouldn't be the first time. But JS is not only a part of the browser, it's a core part of the web, good and bad.
For this reason, I don't believe that it needs to continue to be easy for someone who doesn't understand that to switch it off because of false or misleading information. The web has grown since JS really started being used, and won't be going away anytime soon.
Also, devil's advocate, why is it a bad thing for non-technical users not to be able to disable javascript? Do you know of any non-technical users who disable javascript?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851702
He's in charge of product design at Mozilla.
From his blog: "Former Head of Firefox UX, now doing Product Design Strategy at Mozilla."
This is a bad thing because it essentially covers up an important feature, and does not inform users that the feature plays a significant role in the behavior of the web pages they visit.
This really needs some careful thought. I mean, Mozilla finds its roots in the very organization that created JavaScript. It owes to its users some clear communication on what JavaScript actually does.
Think about it this way: When the world Wide Web was born, it was a means to deliver text documents, marked up for an interpreter, but the documents were static. What you asked for was exactly what you got, and it stayed that way. You could look under to hood, and understand the information that was being shown to you.
But now? The pages that web sites deliver today are these absurdly sophisticated apparatuses, and what they do under the hood can deceive and manipulate your understanding of what actually happens when you simply try to read some text, or watch a video. Taking away the ability to put a stop to that removes power from the hands of the ordinary user.
Now, when a webpage is delivered, the user is actively prevented from understanding the nature of the information they have requested, and the manner in which it is delivered. This is less open, and less honest. Tools like "View Source" are deliberately defeated, when a "normal", less technically-competent user is prevented from understanding that the page source they may be looking at, in an attempt to understand what they are looking at, bears very little relationship to the final rendering of the page they are expected to use.
JavaScript is not (and should not) be required to deliver a web application. I mean seriously, a web application should be conceived without JavaScript as a requirement (gmail certainly delivers a static HTML version, and works beautifully, as such). It shouldn't be a requirement of the user, expose themselves and their devices to complex operations they may not understand, especially when they are interacting with a very large, very complicated internet, filled with other parties who may not act in their best interest.
We are being pushed into ever greater dependency on applications like Firefox, and we depend on these non-profit "open" foundations to advocate the end user.
When an organization like The Mozilla Foundation works against us, and operates in the best interests of large profit-driven companies (as specifically stated: in one of the related bugs, 537482: "GMail, Apple.com, Facebook, etc.")...
...well then, it's time to stop using Firefox.
Even the more technical users I work with, that can do basic HTML, don't look at the source of other pages. In fact, I think with the tools built into the browser becoming so good, they actually look at the final markup if anything.
It may also be the case for me, but I wonder if you're more upset about the prevalence of JS in the modern web.
There's certainly bad uses of JS, but then when I see something like Gmail I personally am glad it evolved like it did.
No, it's not as simple as it was 15+ years ago when I first got on the web, but it's so dynamic and interesting ...
Disabling JavaScript at this point is like disabling CSS IMHO.
Disabling JS could increase general browsing security, but there's much better things people should be worrying about. Like verifying URLs. Going to sites you trust. Watching what you click. Installing an anti-virus. And keeping it updated. Installing updates and patches.
Install noscript if you must disable JS. Then it can at least be selective (haven't used, so I assume that's the case).