I'd like to express my hatred of websites that deliver content via javascript, requiring me to turf through 20 different scrips to figure out which one I have to enable to scroll the page.
HTML is fine people.
HTML is fine people.
I run into a new website with this problem less frequently than once every few months. It's always the same few, like Time, still using their stupid hand-rolled content engines.
It's not my job to cater to special snowflake syndrome.
(That guy is me. But neither of us is going to win.)
Oh, the ironing.
What I find irritating is when people make the decision to use NoScript, knowing the tradeoffs involved, then are vocal about sites not working. You made the decision, easily reversible, now live with it!
Time's website may well be for free, but they want me to buy their paid products, they need to sell themselves to me.
Wanna know how you can make sure your sales pitch fails? Try to deliver it via unverified code that could be doing anything.
Noscript is a standard part of all sensible internet users internet security, for the simple reason that there is no way to know what a block of javascript is doing unless you first capture and examine it.
If your product pitch won't work until I desecure my computer, I guess I'll never see your sales pitch.
Getting mad at me won't change that.
e: Nor will downvoting me :D
I'm just going to assume this was done on purpose.
I saw 'time.com' and didn't even bother clicking. Somewhat related: I also skip over any links to paywalled sites(nytimes, wsj, etc...).