Aaaand that's why I always have JS disabled by default.
Hardly foolproof, but 95% of the time it truly doesn't improve my web experience.
Hardly foolproof, but 95% of the time it truly doesn't improve my web experience.
Really? I find that hard to believe. Do most sites that use extensive JS (Facebook, Mint, etc) have non-JS supported versions?
Periodically on here, and elsewhere, you hear people banging the "I browse the web with JS disabled and it's fine" drum, but I can only imagine that their use of the web is limited to a certain set of fairly static sites. RMS gets by just fine with web pages being emailed to him, but, you know, RMS isn't like most people.
Mainly, it's that I don't want my PC executing code that I don't know about, if I can help it. If I notice a site is e.g. requesting to run JS from twenty or thirty different domains I can be more cautious.
Overall, turning Flash off by default (but still having it installed), using NoScript, Ghostery, and AdBlock, have really improved the web for me.
Really-really? Would you believe bacteria are the predominant global biomass even though you seldom think of them?
The vast majority of all time consumed (or forcibly-wasted) by default-enabled JavaScript goes towards... What? Ads, tracking-mechanisms, and various nonfeatures to eke out minor visual effects. Even ignoring the cost to dispel unfavorable interruptions, the cumulative load/render delays constitute a user-experience death of thousand cuts.
The few dependable repeat-visit sites are easy enough to whitelist.