
Warning.js – show respect towards your visitors with this widget - mstef
https://asciimoo.github.io/warning.js/
======
k__
Oh yes, scaring away users. Good luck with that.

------
hilbert42
I've essentially done all my web browsing without JavaScript since about the
year 2000 and frankly it's been really wonderful.

Without JavaScript, web pages load in my browser in a fraction of the
time—pages just snap into action, even on slow machines. I can go days without
ever seeing an ad. For me, ads are 'yesterday'—I simply don't have enough time
left in my life to waste it watching junk: web pages are much cleaner looking
and much less cluttered; pop-ups are a thing of the past, and I don't have to
wait for all those junk links to be sent 'analytics' web servers. And that's
only the beginning (and, naturally, there's increased security without JS
too).

Couple my JavaScript-free-zone with a few extras such as an ad blocker, and a
JavaScript 'black-lister' such as 'YesScript' (which is now a necessity since
Wiki screwed up the viewing of images with an irritating bit of JS), and
finally one tops it off with a user-agent scrambler. Oh, and I nearly forgot:
nowadays, an overlay blocker is also an essential part of the repertoire
(overlays being the most recent 'designed' atrocity.

After that, it's all singing and dancing.

(Oh, I remind you that I've not forgotten WebRTC either. Seems this mess is
best concoction that these 'geniuses' could dream up to overcome/fix an
already stuffed system.

Right, even people with room-temperature IQs can adopt 'the 'used car salesman
approach' by just painting over rust.)

That all said, there's still the odd occasion where I have turn on JS but it's
infrequent, and when I do, all I need to do is to toggle JS on with one click.

For those who question how I manage with so many roadblocks all I can say is
that I don't have a problem with the types of sites that I usually visit.
Occasionally, there's an odd irritation such as NASA's site but they're so few
they're very manageable. The fact is I don't want junk that pops up and
distracts me when I'm reading an article. Here's the well-worn paradigm: if
I'm in a library reading a book then its pages don't suddenly start animating
with ads and other visual diatribe. Right, I expect my web experience to be
just as peaceful.

Many will say I'm a freeloader, well so be it! The way big commercial
interests have completely screwed up the web in the last decade or so means
that I wouldn't care less if half of them went broke because those like me
refused to view their ads—don't forget they stole OUR once-peaceful web space!
What truly amasses me is why people have been so tolerant of this JavaScript
junk for so long. Are people really so enamored with the crap that JavaScript
delivers them? If so, then it's time we developed a second internet for
serious users, the kiddies can have this one to themselves (seeing they love
it so much).

JavaScript is a pernicious web 'disease' that's been forced on poor unwitting
users by mostly commercial interests to maximize profits, the sooner most
people realize this the better for all.

Funny isn't it, that the web could be a much more secure place than it is now
just by turning off JavaScript. Instead, this 'sacred cow' is so revered that
most would rather put up with rotten performance—and even worse, the loss of
their data—than to even broach this taboo subject.

~~~
krapp
You're _far_ more vainglorious and condescending about not running a scripting
language in your browser than you should be.

~~~
hilbert42
OK, so a bit of hyperbole grabs attention.

1\. I've two professions: IT and engineering; putting my engineering cap on,
if I'd designed a system that was so horrible, slipshod and malevolent as
JavaScript, then very likely I'd be up on negligence charges (someone could be
hurt or killed).

W. Wayt Gibbs said in Scientific American in an article titled 'Software's
Chronic Crisis' about a quarter century* ago "Despite 50 years of progress,
the software industry remains years-perhaps decades-short of the mature
engineering discipline needed to meet the demands of an information-age
society."

Essentially, he went on to equate the then current state of the software 'art'
[art emphasized] in so-called software engineering with the profession of
chemistry circa 1800 (on the evidence, he's one of many who hold this view).
I'm not directly pointing at you, but the JavaScript problem is the elephant
in the room that most don't want to see. Defending the indefensible is not a
particularly bright course of action. The IT industry has had a quarter
century to fix the problem properly but it's failed to do so—even with WebRTC,
we've, at best, only a Rube Goldberg/Heath Robinson—level solution.

I'd suggest software's march towards professionalism in that quarter century
is nigh on non-existent. For example, look what compilation [obfuscation] did
for the industry: it hid the faults, bugs, multiplied security risks many
fold; gave us horrible buggy bloatware like Windows not to mention corruption
(Volkswagen, etc.). [I'm mighty glad I have my fallback profession.]

2\. What I said and what I outlined above is a prescriptive solution that
works well for many people (my hyperbole notwithstanding).

Basically, unless you have to live on JavaScript-ridden sites continually such
as social media ones, then the solution not only works well but also there's
measurable/quantitative benefits.

In other words, do the math and I'll be proved correct. (Of course, I'm only
referring to the user side, owners of web sites are the losers; but then
Facebook, Google, et al are already making obscene profits, the likes of which
we've never previously seen the equal.)

* SciAm, September 1994; Page 86.

