
"Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23 - joallard
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=873709&resub
======
gkoberger
Here's a very relevant blog post by Alex Limi of Mozilla:
[http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/](http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/)

 _Most sites these days that aren’t just displaying content will fail in
interesting & mysterious ways if you don’t have JavaScript enabled. For the
general population, Firefox will appear broken._

 _And yes, I know that some people have reasons (privacy, web development) to
turn off JavaScript. There are many add-ons that can help with this — but it’s
not something that we should ship to hundreds of millions of users._

(EDIT: this is the relevant quote, but worth reading the whole article)

~~~
just2n
I have to say that this article is actually quite terrible, as is the opinion
that any option that might ever be confusing to a user is an option that
shouldn't ship with the product. The thesis of the article is:

"Well, we have met the enemy, and he is us.* In the currently shipping
version, Firefox ships with many options that will render the browser unusable
to most people, right in the main settings ui."

The solutions offered? Kill it all with fire. I'm paraphrasing, of course.

Problem: People today change some feature then have a "broken" browser
(basically, they forgot to turn it back to the default, or they didn't realize
they changed it in the first place).

Solution: reset button, also notification to the user that "this page might
not work correctly", some sort of an extension of how Chrome shows you that a
popup and/or a cookie was blocked, based on your settings. Don't treat your
users like idiots, just provide information that clears up certain odd states
by explicitly informing them of something like:

"The webpage you are viewing may not work correctly because the following
options differ from their default values:

1\. Enable automatic loading of images. 2\. Enable JavaScript.

These features of Firefox are essential for most webpages to run properly. If
the webpage you are trying to access is behaving strangely or appears to be
working incorrectly, <click here> to load the page with the default browser
configuration."

Done, and done. No removing useful features from the browser, no treating
users like morons, but now I have a new, useful, awesome, self-debugging
feature which is user friendly, and doesn't require a pesky IT guru's
assistance navigating the sea of 10 trillion options.

~~~
vlasta2
This was true 10 years ago. These days, every additional setting the
application has is a liability. There is a growing group of people, who are
scared to have conversation with their browser and make any informed
decisions. They ignore such messages. Other people will change any setting
they can find and then forget about it. Then they will be surprised and angry
at the application that it is not working.

My experience shows that the more options an application has, the lazier the
author was. What do you do as a software developer when there are two ways how
to solve a problem? Ask the user which way to use? That is the wrong approach
these days. The computer should not ask the user stupid questions. "Do you
want to enable JavaScript?" is a stupid question for more than 98% of browser
users. Instead of asking questions, software developers should invest the work
to come with answers and "read the user's mind". Successful apps can do just
that.

~~~
millstone
"Do you want to disable JavaScript?" is a stupid question, as you say. "Do you
want your browser to tell Google, Facebook, Twitter, Omniture, DoubleClick,
and six other companies you have never heard of, that you visited this site?"
is not a dumb question. Given that option, 98% of users would say "hell no."

You are absolutely right that configurability is a sign of laziness, the
opposite of hard work. But removing configurability is _not_ the sign of hard
work. Hard work means addressing the interests of all parties, and Mozilla did
not do that.

Why do those 2% of users disable JavaScript? It's in reaction to how
JavaScript is used: it enables popups, enables distracting advertisements,
lets all sorts of companies track me, makes sites load more slowly, etc. For
this 2%, these uses are so odious as to outweigh the beneficial uses of
JavaScript. So the hard work would be finding a way to distinguish between the
user-friendly and user-hostile uses of JavaScript, and just disable the user-
hostile ones, so that the interests of both classes of users would be
satisfied.

This would not be new: Firefox's popup blocker is enabled by default, which
demonstrates that JavaScript is already disabled for a particular use case,
because it proved to be annoying to users. Why not take that a step further?
If Mozilla wants to force JavaScript on, they should also address the reasons
why that 2% of users go out of their way to disable it today. If those 2% say
"I used to disable JavaScript, but now I don't have to" then Mozilla will have
done their job.

~~~
kelnos
_" Do you want to disable JavaScript?" is a stupid question, as you say. "Do
you want your browser to tell Google, Facebook, Twitter, Omniture,
DoubleClick, and six other companies you have never heard of, that you visited
this site?" is not a dumb question. Given that option, 98% of users would say
"hell no."_

Assuming you're correct (which I'm not convinced you are), when you then
continue, "I have a checkbox that will make it so they don't track you, but it
will also break those sites. Is that ok?" They will also respond "hello no".

 _Firefox 's popup blocker is enabled by default, which demonstrates that
JavaScript is already disabled for a particular use case, because it proved to
be annoying to users. Why not take that a step further?_

Right, because you can easily say that a non-user-triggered window.open() is
almost always unwanted. I can't think of any other cases where it's so clear-
cut and related to JS, or that disabling a particular facet of JS always would
be a net win.

If you're going to claim that there's something like that, provide examples.
How do you know people at Mozilla haven't already thought hard about this
problem and decided there isn't much more they can do? I bet they have.

~~~
dthunt
> "Do you want to disable JavaScript?" is a stupid question, as you say. "Do
> you want your browser to tell Google, Facebook, Twitter, Omniture,
> DoubleClick, and six other companies you have never heard of, that you
> visited this site?" is not a dumb question. Given that option, 98% of users
> would say "hell no." -> This overstates the case, because you'd still
> presumably load the 1x1 tracking png with ?resid=<X>&uid=<Y>.

> "I have a checkbox that will make it so they don't track you, but it will
> also break those sites. Is that ok?" They will also respond "hello no".

This overstates the case most of the time because doing this generally breaks
relatively little for those domains listed, and to the extent it doesn't,
making that decision on a domain-by-domain basis seems to work pretty well
(ask any Noscript user)

------
Osmose
Here's the bug where the option was removed:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851702](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851702)

Limi's blog post "Checkboxes that kill your product" is cited in the bug as a
good explanation of the motivation behind this: [http://limi.net/checkboxes-
that-kill/](http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/)

The option has been added to the DevTools for developers who find it useful:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=864249](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=864249)

And of course addons like NoScript or js-switch are available if you still
want this in your UI: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
us/firefox/addon/noscript/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
us/firefox/addon/noscript/) and [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
us/firefox/addon/js-switch/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
us/firefox/addon/js-switch/)

~~~
mullingitover
Sure, blame the 'checkboxes' and not your own failure to handle disabled js
gracefully.

I'd be mad about this, except I haven't used firefox in years. One less reason
to go back I guess.

~~~
exodust
> "failure to handle disabled js gracefully."

How are we meant to handle AJAX requests that fetch data to display on the web
page that allows users to achieve the goal of their visit? Without JS enabled,
that part of the page will be blank, and many modern, rich content-heavy sites
now pull data from different places on the fly, it's just how it is.

Is your idea of gracefully handling this situation putting a noscript tag
there saying "please enable JS"? If so, what exactly is your problem with
removing the option which we only ask users to re-enable anyway?

As many others have pointed out, you can still disable JS if you really need
to. It's average non-technical users who don't require that option.

~~~
dthunt
Let's not forget that not every page is meant for humans to read, and not
every reader is attempting to consume information the same high-bandwidth
(visual) way.

You might think AJAX is amazing, but I call it an accessibility nightmare.

~~~
exodust
I know exactly what you mean by AJAX being an accessibility nightmare, and
perhaps my own recent over-indulgence in using AJAX to populate the website I
made will come back to bite. Time will tell, and I'm willing to eat humble pie
over it. But in my defense the client's requirement was to get that content on
the page, and AJAX was the only method available to me.

------
gnosis
A few months ago, I switched to using w3m inside emacs as my primary browser.

w3m is not capable of handling Javascript at all. And you know what, for 90%
of the websites I visit, it doesn't matter. They function fine and look fine
without Javascript. And if w3m could manage to make most websites look fine
without Javascript, so could Firefox -- if its developers cared.

As for non-technical users -- they're probably not going to be opening
Firefox's Preferences dialog in the first place. And if they do, they probably
aren't going to start randomly checking and unchecking stuff to see what it
does. That's something an adventurous geek might try, but certainly not your
typical non-technical user.

If Firefox developers wanted to additionally protect the average user from
this dangerous button, they could have simply stuck it in the Advanced tab of
the Preferences dialog, or added a scary warning about being doubly sure that
the user knows what he's doing (like they do with about:config).

That said, I'm happy to use NoScript for this functionality anyway, as it's
far more flexible than a blanket "turn off Javascript everywhere with no
exceptions" button.

~~~
dotmanish
" _As for non-technical users -- they 're probably not going to be opening
Firefox's Preferences dialog in the first place. And if they do, they probably
aren't going to start randomly checking and unchecking stuff to see what it
does._"

You would be surprised what non-geeks tend to do when they have no clue what
to do.

~~~
reeses
My mother-in-law emailed my wife a one line message today asking why she's
seeing ads on Facebook that she hadn't seen before.

You are on the mark.

------
sergiotapia
I like this! The option is still there for power users (who most likely _know_
why they want to disable Javascript) and normal users can't accidentally
disable it. Win-win!

~~~
bpatrianakos
It's even more relevant now with all the front end JavaScript frameworks that
so many web apps rely on these days. In an age where web sites are now web
apps that rely almost totally on JavaScript to function removing this option
except for those who really have a good reason is acceptable and probably
preferable. I feel like educating users is becoming harder and harder due to
how hard we've all pushed for "it just works" type experiences so rather than
fight the tide Mozilla is going with it.

Plus, apart from security concerns which can be dealt with other ways,
JavaScript engines are now capable of running multiple web apps in many tabs
simultaneously without being noticed. Wasn't performance one of the primary
reasons for having this option back in the day? Now its not an issue. Going
forward we might not see a disable js button and think it just as normal as
not seeing an option to disable CSS or even html. It's kind of a non-optional
piece of the web now.

~~~
Isofarro
> It's even more relevant now with all the front end > JavaScript frameworks
> that so many web apps rely on > these days.

Hardly. The number of people who chose to disable JavaScript is utterly
dwarfed by the factors that get in the way of JavaScript successfully
executing on the page.

Very simply: A browser can not execute JavaScript it hasn't received:
[http://isolani.co.uk/blog/javascript/DisablingJavaScriptAski...](http://isolani.co.uk/blog/javascript/DisablingJavaScriptAskingTheWrongQuestion)

You are reliant on factors outside of your control. For example, a well-
intentioned DNS Blacklist took down loads of Fortune 500 companies:
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/05/google_opendns_clash...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/05/google_opendns_clash/)

------
kijin
I supppose too many people accidentally disabled Javascript in recent months
while trying to disable Java. As long as there's an about:config option that
does the same thing, I don't think it's a bad move to remove that option from
view.

I will, however, miss the "Advanced" button next to the "Enable JavaScript"
checkbox (if that button is going to go away, too, which the article isn't
clear about). I use those Advanced options all the time to prevent websites
from messing with my neatly tiled windows and trying to prevent me from using
the right mouse button. Here in South Korea, the majority of blogs and forums
have right-click protection enabled (and refuse to display any content if you
disable Javascript altogether) due to ridiculous defaults in popular
platforms, and every other website feels like they have the right to go full-
screen. Firefox is the only thing that makes this stupid trend bearable. I
guess I'll have to go and check whether NoScript has a similar option.

~~~
thristian
I can confirm the "Advanced" button is gone.

At least for the moment, the dom.disable_window_move_resize and
dom.event.contextmenu.enabled preferences still exist in about:config, though.

~~~
51Cards
This is what will be the major issue for me. I toggle the right click override
option on and off on a very regular basis.

~~~
A321
Shift + right click is the shortcut to always go to the browser context menu..
No need to toggle preferences.

~~~
Livven
Thank you. I'm not familiar with JavaScript but would it be possible for
websites to block shift+right click as well?

EDIT: Per this comment [1] holding shift causes Firefox to bypass event
handlers, so hopefully that wouldn't be possible.

[1]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968919](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968919)

------
aaron695
> This destroys a non-technical user's grasp of the differences between static
> HTML and programatically manipulated HTML.

I think this line says it all.

Non-technical user don't even know what HTML is, the concept they'd ever
"grasp of the differences between static HTML and programatically manipulated
HTML"? Do these people live in the real world?

~~~
slaxman
well said. The fault lies in assuming that the rest of the world works like
the way we (hackers) do. The fact is that they do not. Further, many of end
users actually do like some of those animations that we find shitty.

JS makes the web feel responsive and interactive. I helps keep the user
engaged with you site if used in the correct manner. Removing the option that
easily disables it for a majority of users if the right step. Hackers will
always find a way around it.

~~~
dthunt
I will say this: it confuses the hell out of daihyou, who spends a lot of time
on linkedin.

One man's 'responsive and interactive' is another man's "Did it work?"

I'm not going to make a value judgement on this bit. If snappy, responsive,
and interactive are priorities, they should be handled in a way that doesn't
involve opening the gates of hell and letting Javascript out. If the standards
don't provide a clean way to do that that ensures accessibility and that pages
don't discriminate against programmatic displays, then they damned well should
so that we can exercise the hellspawn that is Javascript once and for bloody
all.

------
kondro
I can't remember the last time I wrote an application that didn't rely on
Javascript for even parts of its basic functionality.

I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS
enabled and the average user definitely would never turn it off except in
error, causing them to think the browser is broken.

Every single common-use browser on the Internet supports Javascript, there is
no reason to assume it is not there as a developer.

~~~
ars
> I simply don't understand why you would want to browse the web without JS
> enabled

It's faster. Much faster. Every time I disable noscript to use some website
(90% of the time it's video that doesn't work) I'm always astonished how much
GARBAGE most website have. Totally useless stuff.

Popup boxes, annoying underlining with mouse overs, certificate verifiers,
bookmarks, social network promoters, chat boxes, and helpers galore.

I suppose that stuff pays the bills? Maybe. But pages are so much faster
without it.

~~~
kondro
But that stuff is all important for the website owner.

Advertising for paying the bills, analytics tracking to work out who is using
their site, chat/comments boxes for social interaction.

~~~
andor
Disabling Javascript isn't equivalent to installing an ad blocker. Ads not
showing are just a side effect if it. If sites can't integrate ads on the
server side it's not my problem. Same with analytics: you can still use
regular web server logs. Everything beyond that is too invasive for my tastes.

~~~
jasonlotito
Not quite. As lockers are common enough that they need to be considered.
However, far less than 1% of users disable JavaScript (on the sites I work
with). I'd be supporting IE6 again with those numbers, because the real cost
is having to build and maintain the different versions of the site.

And all for what? Someone who isn't going to make us anything near the time it
will take to develop.

I'm not saying what you want is wrong. Rather, what you are asking for is to
have a game written in c to be rewritten in python because you don't want to
use c applications.

~~~
ars
> because the real cost is having to build and maintain the different versions
> of the site.

Personally I don't block javascript that comes from the same domain as the
page. Just 3rd party stuff.

This cuts out the majority of the garbage while still letting most sites work.
(I've whitelisted a bunch on CDNs.)

------
BoyWizard
> This destroys a non-technical user's grasp of the differences between static
> HTML and programatically manipulated HTML. It hides the setting amidst
> hundreds of other obscure settings, and does not emphasize the extremely
> powerful tool that JavaScript is, and the fact that it is optional.

Most 'non-technical users' don't have a clue about HTML, Javascipt, static
features, etc. To them the internet consists of Facebook, Google and Youtube.

Arguably users who want to disable Javascript could be classified as
'technical', at least enough to be able to Google either a) how to do it from
within Firefox, or b) install a plugin such as NoScript to do it for them.

~~~
readme
Right. Non-technical users do not think that way, at all. Javascript and HTML
are _implementation details_ of the website they are using. Even people who
hire IT consultants tend not to understand these things much, although they
might think they do.

I can imagine most web developers who freelance have dealt with a complaint
from a client who had mistakenly turned off JavaScript, at least once.

~~~
btipling
Non-technical users do not even know what a browser is, much less anything
about HTML or JavaScript.

~~~
Gormo
What exactly _is_ a non-technical user?

I read threads like this all the time: someone talks about "non-technical
users" or "your grandma" or "pointy-haired bosses" or the like, and then goes
to great length to discuss, in detail, the capacities or cognitive styles or
knowledge base of members of these hypothetical categories.

It all seems like a bunch of arbitrary assumptions.

~~~
smtddr
I don't know about anyone else's experience, but these assumptions are pretty
dead-on in my own personal experience. Non-techies(my mom, or somebody who
only uses home computers for email & turbo-tax and some super-locked-down PC
at work) don't have a clue what/how it's doing what it does. The blue "E" on
the desktop is the internet, sometimes it's even the whole computer when they
say "My computer doesn't work". They most _definitely_ don't have a clue what
HTML or javascript is, or what that blue "e" on their desktop is. That being
said, not to come off as some arrogant know-it-all, I admit I know very little
about how my car works. I just take to the dealer and do the suggested
maintenance. I'm sure I'm paying more than I should somewhere but I don't
care... however, I'm starting to think it's more dangerous not to know how a
computer and the internet work than it is to not know how your car works.

~~~
readme
Cars are regulated and require state inspection. A computer OTOH is still a
mad max device.

------
bad_user
Firefox is the most customizable browser available. It's about time they
cleaned-up their Preferences panel and leave that stuff for extensions to
tackle.

I personally never disabled Javascript from the Preferences panel because I
never find anything in that panel. To disable Javascript, I use the Web
Developer toolbar, which is much more convenient, although not convenient
enough - since one might want to enable/disable Javascript automatically on a
domain basis, which is why this should be best handled by extensions that are
free to innovate the UI.

And while we are at it, I wish Firefox would add a search box in that
Preferences panel. Its usefulness has been demonstrated in Chrome's Settings
and Windows' Control Panel.

Also, Firefox rocks and I'm so happy to see it improve.

~~~
hnha
Have you tried opera (not the latest Chrome-bastard but earlier versions)? I'd
challenge your statement, opera seems much more customizable to me.

~~~
bad_user
When I said "customizable" I didn't mean in terms of settings, but it terms of
what you can do with Extensions/Add-ons.

Name another browser where the Firebug-like functionality is an extension and
not something built-in.

~~~
lmm
That's a very arbitrary line to draw. Some "alternative browsers" exist that
wrap the IE rendering engine in a different UI (and some of those include
their own firebug-like functionality), does that mean IE is more customizable
than firefox (which, after all, forces you to use GTK for your UI)?

~~~
bad_user
Wrapping the IE rendering engine in a different UI is a different browser, but
further than that, you can also embed Gekko, Firefox's rendering engine in a
custom UI.

Examples of browsers that embedded Gekko: Camino (a Firefox fork for OS X that
happened in a time when Firefox wasn't as polished for OS X), Flock and
K-Meleon. Google's Picassa for Linux was also using Gekko.

Also, Firefox's UI toolkit is not GTK, but rather XUL+XPCOM, abstracting over
the various native toolkits:
[https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XUL](https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XUL)

Only Firefox on Linux uses GTK. Even on Linux, there have been previous
attempts at supporting Qt as the backend for KDE, but all failed because of
the easiness with which you can make GTK look like whatever KDE theme you've
got selected - not perfect, but the flaws where not enough to gather interest
in further development.

There's even XULRunner, for easily building and packaging XUL+XPCOM standalone
apps: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/XULRunner](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/XULRunner)

This isn't to say that XUL/Gekko are perfect as their complexity was often the
subject of criticism, which is why Mozilla replaced XUL completely with HTML5
in Firefox OS and will probably do so in future Firefox versions - as they are
also working on Servo, a next-gen rendering engine that doesn't do XUL
anymore: [http://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/research/projects/](http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/research/projects/)

Imagine a browser who's every facet and functionality is customizable by
HTML5/Javascript extensions that you can install with one click. That's what
Firefox already is - the Emacs of browsers.

For example, if my Firebug example wasn't enough, when Chrome was released,
many people loved the light download progress functionality that wasn't
opening an annoying modal window. Pretty soon an extension called the Download
Statusbar happened: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/download-
stat...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/download-statusbar/)

~~~
lmm
>Wrapping the IE rendering engine in a different UI is a different browser,
but further than that, you can also embed Gekko, Firefox's rendering engine in
a custom UI. >Examples of browsers that embedded Gekko: Camino (a Firefox fork
for OS X that happened in a time when Firefox wasn't as polished for OS X),
Flock and K-Meleon. Google's Picassa for Linux was also using Gekko.

True, but only goes to show my point - if firefox's extension mechanism made
it so super-customizable, surely there would be no need for such browsers?

>Firefox's UI toolkit is not GTK, but rather XUL+XPCOM

Fair enough, but the point stands; when writing extensions you're restricted
to using the XUL toolkit. Contrast with e.g. activex-based add-ons in Internet
Explorer, where AIUI you get the standard windows API and can thus use any
toolkit you like.

>Imagine a browser who's every facet and functionality is customizable by
HTML5/Javascript extensions that you can install with one click.

I'm happy to believe that Firefox is the browser that's easiest to customize
_in HTML5 /Javascript_, I just think that's a very arbitrary line to draw. IE
addons can be any language you like (because again they're just using the
standard APIs) and can be installed with one click.

There are plenty of good things about firefox, but I don't think you can say
it's more or less customizable than the alternatives without defining
customizability in a very arbitrary way. All browsers have a succession of
methods of customization, from simple userjs to custom extension formats to
embedding the engine in a new executable, with the power and complexity
increasing at each step. That firefox's "extensions" lie at a bit more
powerful and complex point along the line than chrome's is not the basis for
this blanket claim of greater customizability.

------
philbo
The following rant is somewhat tangential but, as a front-end developer that
takes pride in progressively enhancing websites I work on, I think this is a
shame for a different reason.

So many times when speaking to employers/product owners about progressive
enhancement of JavaScript components, the answer I get back is along the lines
of "we don't care about that" or "we don't have the time". Sometimes in
conversations with other developers too. I think this change will contribute
to an increase in that attitude.

Progressively enhancing a website enables you to still deliver a whizz-bang,
fancy-pants UI but ensure that it degrades to a sane text document when viewed
in, say, lynx [1]. And it doesn't mean doubling the development time of every
feature, which I often hear cited as an argument against. Often it can involve
providing a very cut-down equivalent that takes relatively little time to
build.

Should we care about people that turn off JavaScript or use a non-JavaScript
browser enough to write code for them? Given that the web is an open,
standards-based platform, I think we should.

[1] [http://lynx.browser.org/](http://lynx.browser.org/)

~~~
pacifika
Shouldn't progressive enhancement be part of best practices, rather than a
billable feature on the invoice? Or in other words, used by default.

~~~
philbo
Absolutely! But I still find myself having to make the case for it, when
others are looking for ways to cut corners.

------
ksec
Way too many Geeky answers here. I could understand that, after all this is
Hacker News.

But Majority of Users, My guess that is 60-70% of them, wont even know what
Javascript is or mean.

My bet is that there is Less then 10% of users who cares about this. And less
then 5% who just cant stand to disable it in about:config instead of UI.

And It is true what Mozilla have pointed out, Disabling even some totally
unrelated Javascripts like tracking will somtimes make a mess of Websites. I
have seen it far too many times with Ghostery.

For those 5% who REALLY cares about Disabling Javascript for any reasons
because you think you _know_ so much. I dont see why using an Add-On or going
to about:config searching for Disable Javascript is such as big hassle.

And if you DO have such a big concern over a missing UI features, you can
always go to Opera.

------
bdcravens
Is it just me, or do most of the commenters here seem to believe that it's no
longer possible to disable JavaScript, as opposed to it simply being removed
from the UI?

------
ilaksh
One aspect of this that I haven't heard people get into very much: the idea
that a lot of people have, including (probably) most developers at Mozilla and
many web developers such as myself, is for the web platform to be a ubiquitous
way to deploy applications.

The idea is that JavaScript allows a relatively safe way to do that in a
sandboxed environment (the browser) that is available on almost every
computer.

The developers who really want the web to just be a bunch of static HTML are
actually inhibiting that vision of a web platform. Because if disabling
JavaScript were to become popular, that takes away that capability of web
browsers to run applications. The conversation would go from something like
"we can use JavaScript and this application will run for anyone who has a new
version of Firefox, Chrome, or IE10/11, or Safari" to "we can deploy our
application to the latest browsers, but we will have to first present a screen
asking users to enable JavaScript on our site" or something along those lines.
It goes from being a ubiquitous cross-platform solution to one that will only
run for people who like JavaScript.

JavaScript in the browser is by far the best option we have now and in the
foreseeable future for easily deploying applications across different types of
operating systems and even devices.

Its amazing to me how many people don't appreciate that goal or really take it
into account.

~~~
NinjaWarrior
I still completely disagree making the web an application platform. Because of
the absurd HTML5 cult, many websites are obtaining unpredictable and
inconsistent behavior. The difficulty of explaining it to my old parents is
increasing day by day. Moreover, browsers are getting fatter unlimitedly and
only a few vendors can survive and develop them. It gives browser vendors
special privileges. As we are experiencing now, no one can stop this "Disable
JavaScript" removing. How can people say this is "open" movement? The good old
web is dying.

The web should be words and documents first (I think this page is worth
reading
[http://justinjackson.ca/words.html](http://justinjackson.ca/words.html)).
It's too late to say but if you want a sandboxed application platform, develop
it out of the web. I still believe the plug-in was not a that bad idea, not
the best idea though. At least you can disable it anytime and you have freedom
of choice.

I suspect that the back button will be eliminated next. Because it collapses
most web applications and "user experience".

If the web want to become a perfect application platform, all virtue of the
web will be lost.

~~~
Ygg2
Good old web? What's that? The one with dancing baby gif? Or the old ARPANet?

Web has always been about managing documents in one way or the other. Now
those documents are interactive and interesting to watch and listen.

I mean, if my old chem book had cool animations I could tinker with I'd
probably be having fun with it right now. I don't understand the outcry for
GOW. It's still around and you can still make those sites, but they are
usually hard to read (no fancy column layout to make it easy on the eyes) and
you have to be a great writer to really engage the audience.

Going back to GOW won't make bad writters instantly better. No more than
returning to 8-bit graphic won't instantly make all games better.

------
PavlovsCat
Okay, since Opera seems to have gone the way of the dodo: Is there a browser
for power users? I mean, good luck to Firefox and Chrome, but considering I
rarely use flashy websites, I really would rather use something that only
works with half the sites, but has the experimentation and hunger for ideas
for the sake of ideas more than for the sake of market share these so sorely
lack.

~~~
asnyder
Why do you think Opera has gone the way of the dodo? It's an excellent
browser, by far the best browser in my opinion. Furthermore, they're changing
their renderer to webkit which will ensure no more Opera incompatibility. If
anything, Opera just keeps getting better.

~~~
dmpk2k
The newest version of Opera strips away most of the tools power users like.
It's one step away from Chrome's UI.

They'll probably add most of it back, but it'll take a long time.

~~~
asnyder
I thought Opera Next is just a beta for testing the renderer. I don't think
they consider it the new version of Opera yet, as it doesn't come up as a new
version. I'm sure they wouldn't be so stupid to remove all the nice new
features they've recently added and that their loyal following rely on.

------
Shank
There was a talk (or podcast?) that discussed how cluttered with vestigial
options Firefox and other browsers are. One of the examples was JS - if you
turn it off entirely it makes the entire web seemingly broken. As long as the
option is there for power users, this is the kind of thing that removing will
probably cause less headaches for people in the long term.

~~~
duskwuff
You're probably thinking of "Checkboxes That Kill":
[http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/](http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/)
\- and I believe it's what inspired Firefox to remove the option.

~~~
Shank
That's exactly what it is. Thanks!

------
ck2
This is unnecessary panic/upset.

It's only being removed from the UI

The backend ability is still there.

Extensions like no-script and yes-script (I prefer) will still function.

~~~
PommeDeTerre
A lot of the anger in this case is because Mozilla is once again removing
useful functionality from Firefox for very nebulous reasons.

Even if such functionality can be restored by using about:config, or by
installing extensions, it becomes a hassle.

They did this with the menu bar, and it hurt Firefox's usability. Now many of
us have to waste time and effort reconfiguring it to make the menu bar
reappear every time I install Firefox.

They did this with the status bar, and it hurt Firefox's usability. Now many
of us have to waste time installing extensions to restore this core
functionality.

This case may be even worse, because it's not a one-time fix. Now we'll have
to go digging through about:config options each time we want to disable
JavaScript, or wait until Firefox 24 so we can disable JavaScript through the
developer tools.

Many of us are just plain getting fed up with Mozilla's bad decisions, and
very justifiably so.

~~~
mhaymo
\- disabling javascript via about:config is no harder than through the
settings if you know about it

\- How does removing the status bar hurt usability? You still see links when
you hover over them, and the add-on bar can be toggled instantly with Ctrl+/

\- Always displaying the menu bar by default is a waste of space, it can still
easily be accessed with Alt or configured to always display.

Honestly you seem to just dislike change, and I'd advise you to simply turn
off automatic updates. The rest of us are happy for improvements to be made.

~~~
PommeDeTerre
I'm all for change that improves usability, efficiency, and performance, for
instance. I'm not for changes that obviously inhibit such things, like the
changes that Mozilla has made recently.

about:config is not as convenient to use as a checkbox in the preferences
dialog. If what you're suggesting were actually true, then there'd be no need
for a preferences dialog at all, and all users would configure Firefox using
about:config. But we both know that isn't true. It is not convenient to
remember the name of a specific about:config option, especially when the names
change periodically. Even filtering by part of the option name isn't
convenient, as that requires remembering Mozilla's terminology, and using a
general term like "javascript" still leaves many options to sift through
manually.

As for the status bar, the URL popup shown when hovering over links is much
less usable than the status bar. It is harder to quickly focus on, for
instance. Having to remember yet another obscure keyboard shortcut for
functionality that should be enable by default, like the addon bar, does not
promote usability, as well.

The menu bar is not a "waste of space" because it more than pays back its cost
by making a huge amount of commonly-used functionality very easily accessible.
It is especially valuable because of the cross-application conventions it
embodies, making it take even less effort to perform common tasks.

We shouldn't have to manually enable core functionality like menus or the
status bar, for example. Such functionality should already be enabled by
default when Firefox is first installed. Anyone who doesn't like the menu bar
or the status bar should have the option to disable them, of course. But they
should not have been disabled by default, or even removed completely.

------
alister
Wow, how times change. The smart advice was to never use Javascript. (Years
ago pg even wrote, " _I would not even use Javascript, if I were you. Most of
the Javascript I see on the Web isn 't necessary, and much of it breaks."_ )
Javascript has gone from horribly flaky -> occasionally useful -> necessary ->
mandatory.

~~~
tracker1
That's because more people are actually taking the time to understand the
browser, dom, markup and language itself, instead of copy/pasting some poorly
written image-swapping script. (God I've seen too many of those)... JS has
been capable of doing some fairly impressive app-like functionality since the
late 90's. I'd say NN4/IE4 was the beginning of that ability, despite
dramatically different approaches.

Today, browsers have far more in common (regarding js/dom) with each other
(IE8+ too) than at any point pre-2005. And it is about damned time. I still
think the likes of jQuery round out a ton of those rough edges, and it still
disappoints me to see so many who hate JS because they want it to be (insert
preferred language here).

JS is, and has been my favorite language for a very long time.

------
srikarg
That's a good move to make considering the numerous JavaScript-dependent web
applications present today!

------
holalala
disabling javascript is the most effective method against XSS, so it's really
bad choice to not be able to do it simply. not that firefox would be that
security-minded in other areas regarding to javascript (XSS + form autofill
without SecureLogin addon = fun & profit for hackers)

------
gcb0
Didn't gnome3 taught us a valuable lesson on dumbing things down on the
expectation that users are dumb/can't read?

~~~
readme
I hope you realize that the users of Gnome and other X11 desktops have already
passed a serious level of technical literacy. In the event they haven't, it's
because they're the direct family member of some techie.

------
Ankaios
If Firefox's developers are worried about people not understanding why a page
doesn't work, another potential solution would be to provide users with some
feedback. For instance, if Javascript is disabled but present in a page,
perhaps show a (simplified?) small debugger box showing the next lines of
Javascript which _would_ have been executed and some sort of an obvious Run /
Play button to start the script.

I'd prefer if browsers treated the Web as less of a black box, and if they
erred more toward helping users understand the world they are exploring.

~~~
dave1010uk
This is a great idea, but should probably be simpler for the average user. Eg
"You have JS off, which will break some websites. Click here to turn it on.
The simple option you used in the past to toggle this has gone. Click here to
find out how to toggle it now"

------
ID_10T
As a Firefox user, I feel like most of the people complaining are Chrome users
just looking to pick a fight.

Hey, Chrome folks, Firefox has this great thing called NoScript. I realize
Chrome doesn't have that, so you have to manually disable/enable JavaScript.
We just use NoScript, as we have for years, which does a lot more. Firefox
users don't rely on the "Disable JavaScript" option, nor ever did.

This is a nonissue, but continue to make it more than it is.

------
dmiladinov
As long as you can still disable JS via about:config or NoScript, this is
hardly worrisome.

------
grannyg00se
The bug was resolved as invalid with no explanation. I hope that by the time
this makes it to regular release the transition is handled better.

------
overgard
I'm surprised that checkbox hung around as long as it did. I imagine only
maybe .001% of browser users actually really cared enough to turn that off,
and if they did, they were probably already running something like NoScript
since toggling it in the preferences all the time is way too blunt an
instrument anyway.

------
pschastain
I can't stand engineers who assume that they know better than those who use
their products. Not just hiding the ability to easily disable javascript, but
RE-ENABLING IT AGAIST THE USERS EXPRESSED DESIRE via an update - seriously,
your head is so far up your ass you'd have to shit twice just to see daylight.

------
SkyMarshal
This is a heavy-handed solution that could be better solved simply by adding
more explanatory tooltips. Something like:

[x] Disable Javascript. This will break or significantly reduce the
functionality of many websites, but will also prevent them from gathering
marketing and other data on you.
[Details]([http://www.mozilla.org/javascript](http://www.mozilla.org/javascript))

Make the primary tradeoffs clear, supply a link to a mozilla.org site with a
more comprehensive explanation of what you give up and gain.

Programmers like to simplify, abstract, and modularize, but that isn't always
the best strategy with language. Sometimes, even with control panel tooltips,
it's better to be a little bit more verbose, take up a little more screen real
estate, if it saves your users some trial-and-error time or a trip to Google.

------
dangayle
I commented on this elsewhere, but to all the people who assume that
developers can just build websites and assume that JS is enabled, please
Google "Section 508".

FWIW, I don't think we should avoid educating users. Pandering to the dumbest
common denominator only makes dumb things in the long run.

------
Fuxy
Well JS can be disabled with the help of plugins however I find it ominous
that you have to be an expert user/programmer to disabled javascript.

There are a lot of websites out there that use javascript for less than
reputable purposes so not being able to disable it when you know you might run
into them is insecure.

Like say using tor where having JS enabled is like asking to be tracked.

I know disabling JS is not an option on the modern web but then ship with
something like noscript instead don't just leave users exposed.

This is not a feature that can just be removed it needs to be replaced
instead.

------
ID_10T
This will obviously receive a lot of hate from the tech community.

Fortunately they are the 1%. For everyone else in the world, this is a
welcomed change. Most people don't even know what JavaScript is.

------
muyuu
[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/js-
switch/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/js-switch/)

------
protomyth
At this point, I'm fine with disabling options if the program is sufficiently
scriptable / programmable to allow someone to write a plugin to duplicate the
"turn off" behavior. For browsers, we seem to be in a plugin replaces options
universe. If a browser plugin cannot duplicate the behavior, then the browser
needs to be changed to allow it or the option needs to stay.

------
saejox
There are more people who disable JS unintentionally than those who do it
intentionally.

This is a good move. Option still exists in about:config.

------
swiftin
Why is taking away features "in" now?

~~~
mfincham
<proselytizing> Software needs to empower the user. Writing arbitrary
limitations in to code to make certain functionality harder to achieve is a
seriously repulsive attitude for developers to have.

The current trend in removing features from software seems like a great way to
have a dire shortage of engineers in 50 years time. The attitude that
"software is a magic and untouchable black box, you can only use it to do the
specific thing the developer wants you to" destroys the true power of the
computer as a tool, it might as well be a radio or a TV that incessantly
produces other peoples ideas.

Write useful, empowering and well tested modular code. Let the user work out
what crazy and wonderful ways they arrange those modules. Don't make changes
that serve only to glob more functionality up in to impenetrable, monolithic
black boxes. </proselytizing>

Also: Overriding peoples existing preferences during upgrade? Nice work guys
:/

~~~
njr123
Have you ever actually met any normal users? They have work they need to do,
and the software is just a means to an end.

They don't want to be 'empowered' by developers, and they definitely don't
want to have to deal with arranging a bunch of poorly documented modules that
make no sense if you are not familiar with the underlying architecture.

~~~
homeomorphic
Then have another checkbox, something like " _enable advanced settings
(warning: if you don 't know anything about cars, would you really mess with
your car's breaks?)_", that toggles the availability of these kinds of
settings. Everybody wins.

~~~
asadotzler
We have that. It's called about:config.

~~~
homeomorphic
Good point.

------
DigitalSea
It makes sense to me. You can't even do Internet banking these days without
needing Javascript enabled and to disable it you'll always have the plethora
of addons that allow you to disable Javascript anyway. I think this is a
welcome removal from Firefox, it's 2013 not 1925, Javascript is everywhere.

------
holalala
Looks like the reason behind the move is that preferences UI has become
incomprehensible ... which actually doesn't have anything to do with
javascript. Perhaps a move towards Eclipse-like preferences would be a wiser
choice?

------
aerolite
Stop disabling Javascript, you Luddite. The entire web depends on it.

------
sampk
Classic Brendan Eich.

------
marco-fiset
The thing is that non-expert users generally leave javascript on, because they
don't even know what it is, let alone disabling it.

------
frontsideair
I'm surprised no one has posted this xkcd strip yet.

[http://xkcd.com/1172/](http://xkcd.com/1172/)

~~~
frontsideair
Oh, and I didn't post this to bash the sincere concern about discoverable
options. They could disable JS, and they still can, using an extension or
going through a menu which clearly states that those configurations may break
the 99% of the web.

Every change is prone to break someone's workflow. But if there is a good
enough alternative and if the change is better for everyone, I think that
should be left alone. If there was no way to disable JS after this update, I'd
be pretty mad as well. But having an option deep enough to keep away from
unsuspecting eyes is only sane.

------
philliphaydon
WOOOOHOOOO Best knews I've heard for Firefox! Now if only every other browser
would do it.

------
joeheyming
Maybe Firefox can replace it with a don't tender html checkbox </sarcasm>

------
rocky1138
The title isn't entirely accurate: it's been moved not removed.

------
dewiz
many web sites don't work without cookies either, specifically the
authentication.

if the functionality of "modern" sites is the only rationale, it is simply a
wrong decision by Mozilla.

~~~
tomjen3
You can't make authentication to work safely without cookies because HTTP
isn't stateful.

------
leoc
Look on the bright side. At least we'll never, ever have to hear about the
Principle of Least Power again from Mozilla/HTML5 advocates lionising the
"Open Web" against smartphone apps, Native Client or what have you.

------
wooptoo
About time. JS is an integral part of the web experience.

------
drdaeman
Not surprised. Mozilla, being an important entity in JavaScript ecosystem,
obviously wouldn't disapprove web developers willing to shove JS down
everyone's throat.

------
crististm
That spencer guy really sounds like a smartass; I mean, we're too stupid to be
around him and not seeing the light that shines through his ass; vent off

------
mattbeck
It's about time.

------
wprl
Good!

------
camus
I exclusively surf with javascript disabled by default. I only turn javascript
on on websites that i trust or the site has to give a good reason to do so. i
wont turn on javascript to display your crappy jquery menu or slideshow.

So many pages are totally broken without javascript. You dont need javascript
to have a good layout, a complexe menu or display images. Yet some
"professional" sites dont even work without javascript on, All you see is a
blank page.

And by the way, there is a tag called noscript , but it seems webdesigners
that only think about demonstrating their "html5" talents dont know their
basics.

Javascript is the new flash. Stupid cheesy animations , heavy pages , memory
leaks that kill your browser, javascript intros that you cant skip ,broken
parallax scrolling , slow scrollbars so it feels like you are on ipad , it
will be worse than flash when designers start abusing Adobe Edge on all their
websites.

So long firefox...

~~~
gnosis
Javascript, Flash, HTML 5, and virtually all the rest of the HTML
"enhancements" are a cancer on the web.

Honestly, the only website that I can think of where using Javascript actually
does something useful that I'd have a hard time doing better on a standalone
app on my own machine is Google Maps, where it's nice to be able to scroll
around by dragging the map with the mouse.

But even there, I'd gladly sacrifice that feature for a standalone mapping app
on my own machine, so I don't have to worry about Google spying on me whenever
I decide to go somewhere!

Geez. The web has become a gigantic spyware advertising network, and
Javascript, Flash, and related garbage are some of the main enablers of it.

</rant>

~~~
foobarbazqux
Youtube needs either Flash or HTML5, do you think it's worthless?

~~~
copypasteweb
<object/> works well for playing video without any JavaScript.

~~~
lmm
<object/> is W3C gunk, with its crazy and pointless clsids. <embed> works
fine, as it has for 14 years.

------
CyberDroiD
Javascript is not required to read articles on the web. It's optional. That's
why "Reader" mode is so handy, just show me the article so I can read it.
Sometimes I don't like waiting for my browser to struggle with poorly written
JS.

It sounds like a classic noobie mistake... "Why are users able to turn off
Javascript?" "No idea." "Remove the feature!"

If anyone says Javascript is not optional, they are trying to sell you
something: probably web apps!

~~~
JoshTriplett
> Javascript is not required to read articles on the web.

Agreed. However, the web consists of far more than just "articles", and quite
a bit of content legitimately uses JavaScript for required functionality.
Disabling it needs to have the kinds of huge "this will break things" warnings
associated with installing an extension like NoScript; it shouldn't have a
checkbox in Firefox's preferences.

~~~
PavlovsCat
I have a _crazy_ idea: a popup with an explanation the first time the user
toggles the feature.

~~~
abtinf
That's a terrible idea. The explanation would have to be very long -
practically an essay. And the only people that will understand the explanation
(or even care) are folks who are competent enough to quickly google how to
disable javascript through about:config.

Increased software complexity and no tangible benefit. Lose-Lose.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
What? If you can't explain in one sentence the fact that disabling JS will
break most websites and it should only be done if you know what you're doing,
then you've got bigger problems.

~~~
UberMouse
People will still do it without understanding and then complain that Firefox
broke. There is no legitimate reason your average user should have access to
this checkbox. Especially when if you actually want to disable Javascript it's
still very easy.

~~~
PavlovsCat
_People will still do it without understanding and then complain that Firefox
broke._

If that is true, then point me to all those complaints.

 _There is no legitimate reason your average user should have access to this
checkbox._

That's called kicking away the ladder, and fuck that with a rusty chainsaw.
How are people supposed to even get curious about what Javascript is, when
they never hear of it?

~~~
kingkilr
Somehow the dark corner of a preferences pane doesn't seem like the place
_anyone_ would choose for an introduction to Javascript.

~~~
PavlovsCat
That's the point, you don't _choose_ when to first come across something you
haven't heard of before. You don't wake up one morning and say "I guess I'll
go to the library and get a book about Javascript" because you dreamed about
it.

There are a million ways to display and to drill down into options that would
make the FF options less cluttered, more logical, while having even more
options than it does. There are ways to inform users pretty much exhaustively
via built-in tooltips and documentation -- all of this has been working great
in the 90s and got better since then. Icon > Title/Tooltip > Short Description
> Verbose Description, so you learn everything you "stumble over" once when
you need it, and from then on just use it, with the option to refresh your
knowledge anytime.

Just compare about:config in Opera and Firefox, and simply accept we're
dealing with different levels of skill and taste here, not just different
choices.

------
SmokyBorbon
Firefox

2002-2013

