
Ask HN: Why would you disable JavaScript? - cupofjoakim
Base info: I&#x27;m a front end dev born in the early 90&#x27;s with three years experience.<p>A lot of older dev&#x27;s that I&#x27;ve worked with have told me that best practice often includes making sure that the site is usable even if you&#x27;ve got javascript disabled.<p>To me, this is completely bonkers. Are we really supposed to cater to the sub 2% that chooses not to use javascript?<p>To me it would make more sense to use that time to make the sites usable for visitors with disabilities by including screen reader support and stuff like that.
======
AlyssaRowan
Because it reduces the attack surface of the browser?

Because not all search engines could cope with it (this reason now obsolete).

Because of a variety of screen readers and browsers which don't (reason also
obsolete).

It's good practice to not go with batshit insane navigation, however (infinite
scroll interactions with the back button, anyone?), or require JS for trivial
inanities, or not have relatively meaningful URIs.

~~~
cupofjoakim
Great answer. I wouldn't couple js with insane navigation though, that's a
different problem entirely (which we as a community need to shun until it
disappears).

------
ejr
It kills a lot of autoplay videos, popups -- the "in page" variety -- and
other dark patterns I see on a lot of sites. The only regret I have is that
ads get disabled too so if it's a place I really enjoy a lot and they have a
means to donate, I give them something.

Besides this, it also gets rid of a lot of ad tracking without having to
install any plugins specifically to block it. I'm a big fan of using existing
features, both in software and hardware, to their fullest before extending
them.

But the biggest reason is my computer is a bit slow too and I don't want to
spend hundreds more just to consume text; something that hasn't changed since
the dawn of the web and something I've been doing for years. It's wasteful to
pollute my closet and a landfill in the future with e-waste because single-
page apps and fancy transitions don't work properly.

------
VMG
> Are we really supposed to cater to the sub 2% that chooses not to use
> javascript?

In my opinion: No.

JavaScript should be treated as default feature of the browser now. It's about
as worth the effort as catering to people who want to use Lynx as their
browser.

The screen reader argument is bogus too, modern screen reader software is not
hampered by JS.

I also wonder if those who disable JS because of the increased attack surface
also disable CSS as well.

~~~
yuvadam
Don't troll. CSS cannot run arbitrary code on your device.

~~~
VMG
Neither can JS, as it is sandboxed.

The interpretation and application of CSS directives is not Turing complete,
but often enough to leak information from your browser.

~~~
csandreasen
> Neither can JS, as it is sandboxed.

Not true. It's definitely possible to escape the sandbox. Some examples:

[https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-
framework/tree/master/m...](https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-
framework/tree/master/modules/payloads/singles/firefox)

[http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2013/mfsa2013-12.ht...](http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2013/mfsa2013-12.html)

[http://www.iss.net/security_center/reference/vuln/googlechro...](http://www.iss.net/security_center/reference/vuln/googlechrome-
javascript-bo.htm)

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=805121](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=805121)

[https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/woot08/tech/full_papers/...](https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/woot08/tech/full_papers/daniel/daniel.pdf)

------
Natsu
I have it selectively whitelisted via NoScript, rather than just disabled. I
only enable it for a domain when there's a compelling reason (i.e. it's not
just for ads/trackers) and even then, the permissions will be temporary unless
it's a site I frequent.

Most of the time browser security flaws rely on JavaScript in some way, so
this makes me more secure by default at the expense of usability. It has a
happy side-effect of disabling other random annoying things as well.

------
tomstuart
From the UK government:

> Surprisingly, the proportion of people that have explicitly disabled
> JavaScript or use a browser that doesn’t support JavaScript, only makes up a
> small slice of people that don’t run JavaScript.

[https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-
missi...](https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-
on-javascript-enhancement/)

------
nhebb
I normally browse using Firefox with the NoScript add-on. The other day I was
using Chrome, and following an HN link, the article had an ad with colored
balloons cascading down the screen. On another site, I got a pop-under ad. On
yahoo News, the javascript took so long to load the browser locked up for ~10
seconds - I couldn't even scroll. Using Chrome felt similar to browsing in the
mid-2000's.

Honestly, I think the overuse of javascript on media sites has become so f'ing
obnoxious that I don't know how people put up with it.

------
binarymax
Thats a great question, and the answer depends on what your product is. If you
are making SaaS or a web based app, then it is perfectly reasonable to require
JavaScript. If you are making public websites, that display content or
represent a brand, then you probably want to cater to those who don't have it
enabled. Also remember it is not just the 2% that have javascript disabled
that you need to consider. You should also take into account anyone who would
require 508 compliance on your site. Thinking about 508 often leads to a more
conscious decision on how to structure script based functionality on your
page.

------
tux1968
Turn the question around. What exactly are you providing with Javascript that
is _essential_? If in the final analysis there is nothing essential, only
spit-n-polish, then _why not_ cater to a broader audience by employing
progressive enhancement.

In my opinion better designs would emerge from the influence of this design
constraint, along with better tools and frameworks.

~~~
double051
JavaScript allows you to use WebGL, which is essential for high-performance 3D
interactive content in the browser.

Granted, not many websites need WebGL, but the ones that do need JavaScript.

~~~
KaiserPro
I'd suggest that you've not really answered the question.

yes webGL is a nice feature, but is it _required_?

For example, a menu is required for navigation, however it doesn't need
animations to work. Sadly there has been a trend for things that actively
slowdown or hamper speedy navigation (the breaking of the back button,
animated transitions etc.)

Thats not to say JS is inherently bad. but when a website sucks 90% cpu to
essentially display text, there is something drastically wrong.

------
re
It's called "progressive enhancement". There's a lot that's been written about
it, and it's still a debate-provoking topic, but it's not just about catering
to people that choose not to use javascript.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement)

[http://jakearchibald.com/2013/progressive-enhancement-
still-...](http://jakearchibald.com/2013/progressive-enhancement-still-
important/)

------
elorant
I wouldn’t. But I have Ghostery installed and in some cases it completely
destroys sites. So my guess is that the 2% you're mentioning could get a bit
higher. I don't know how popular utilities like Ghostery or NoScript are
outside our community but I won't be surprised if their usage rises.

~~~
Already__Taken
People should be testing what happen to their site when random resources
you're pulling in don't load.

Only time ghostery breaks sites for me is when some massive 'page failed to
load' element site on top of the content. I can delete those with dev tools.

------
pmontra
I don't disable JS in the browser preferences. I use FF with No Script to
enable it selectively for only the sites and the functionality I need.

Example 1: HN needs JS only for voting so I don't enable it here unless I want
to vote a post or a comment. However HN's JS is trivial and can be easily
inspected so I might want to enable it permanently as well.

Example 2: YouTube requires JS from 6 domains but I can keep four of them
disabled and still be able to view videos. I really don't need
googlesyndication.com, plus.googleapis.com and googletagservices.com (among
the other things I'm missing comments but who cares). Some of them are
probably just spyware. I also don't need google.com but Google Maps don't work
without it so I probably already enabled it before going to YouTube.

Example 3: TechCrunch is a nightmare of nested JS requires. However I can read
it without enabling any JS and it's also much faster to load.

If your site is (example) an Angular single page application I'll probably
enable enough JS to make it move and check it out. If there are so many JS
dependencies that I can't find the right combination and I see JS coming from
well known spyware domains I might decide to skip that site completely. There
are sites like that. If I'm really interested I fire up Chrome and give them a
try in there. Actually, I might install the new Opera only for using it as a
honeypot for that kind of sites.

~~~
alexcroox
Browsing the web must be a pretty painful experience for you

~~~
Piskvorrr
From my experience with NoScript, quite the opposite: no annoying video popups
(yes, yes, technically it's a full-page DIV nowadays), no animated nonsense.

And in cases where JS is required for the page to work, I enable it with two
clicks.

------
PinguTS
There are many different reasons why Javascript should only be enhancement.

First of all, it always additional stuff to load, which takes time. Think, you
are on your mobile with shitty cell reception. It happened for me just a few
weeks ago in Nepal and Bhutan. If your site rely on Javascript, you cant even
do a simple reload.

Javascript also adds an additional layer. It takes time to execute. You could
argue, that device are fast enough, but for me that is only the argument for
the lazy people who don't want think. Like, what about I can't afford a faster
device or I don't want. Like, my mom still has a PPC Mac Mini and she don't
want a newer computer, because she is very fine with it. My dads PC is even
older running an version of Windows XP using some version of Opera.

In general your thinking should be not about how many people I am excluding,
but instead how many people I am including.

Like e.g. I am using DataTables myself to make it nice and pretty. I could
include the data via JSON instead of including an HTML table beforehand. But
why? If I include the HTML table, then I can assure the 100% of the HTML
browser, whatever type, can display it.

It is always about inclusion, inclusion of every people who has some sort of
disabilities or dislikes. This should be very first priority. Then the second
priority should be about making it nice, pretty and shiny.

------
Kliment
I always disable JS by default. It prevents a lot of the cross-site tracking
bullshit from working. And catering to users with disabilities tends to be
easier when your page content is represented as page content and not
dynamically loaded by JS.

~~~
cupofjoakim
Dynamically loading content has problems beyond screen readers, for stuff like
SEO, so I get your point. Another guy did post this link though, showing that
most screen reader users have js enabled: [http://a11yproject.com/posts/myth-
screen-readers-dont-use-ja...](http://a11yproject.com/posts/myth-screen-
readers-dont-use-javascript/)

~~~
Kliment
Of course they do, or they would not be very useful given the number of
horribly-built websites today, but even the JS-enabled screen readers can get
confused by dynamically loaded content, sometimes getting it in the wrong
order or not being able to access content that's triggered by things like
infinite scrolling. Still, requiring JS for core non-interactive functionality
is a net negative for any website. Why spend more effort on making your site
more annoying?

------
vfclists
If the purpose is to present static information, such as what you get with a
newspaper Javascript shouldn't be necessary. It is just plain lazy design.

It should only be necessary with interactive pages, or web apps.

The 2% who choose not to use Javascript are mostly the tech savvy ones who
know the kind of malware vector Javascript is. Some of them may be your
employers, so be careful when you use bonkers to describe their preferences.

------
JonnieCache
Back in the day it was also about supporting the various lo-fi web browsing
devices that were around at the time. WAP on mobile phones, and TV set top
boxes (Was it called WebTV? Those were the days.)

Now I agree it's only to support web fundamentalists who disable it
completely, and those people surely must be used to having sites not work
properly.

At the same time, if you require JS for things that don't need it, like basic
navigation or dropdown menus, then that's lame for a different set of reasons.

In general, the principle of progressive enhancement is still a useful and
important one. It's good to know how to make a great website in pure html and
css, and then to layer the JS on top, simply because it's an effective
technique that results in good code and usable websites.

------
MisterNegative
Maybe some people care about their privacy? A lot of ignorant webmasters load
Facebook, Google analytics, twitter buttons and other privacy violating
JavaScript. The only way to guarantee some level protection is by disabling
JavaScript, plugins and cookies.

------
raving-richard
Yes you are supposed to cater to the 2%. Wolfram Alpha says 2% of the US
population is 6.39 million people. That's how many potential people from just
one country you are treating badly. And as for screen reading users, that's
just another 2% isn't it (or another "tiny" number). Why do you care about
them? Well, it is the law, but, it's also just sensible.

Also, people browse with poor Internet connections, and even if they have JS
enabled, the JS might time-out before it downloads, and so they'll just have
to see your content without it.

I browse without JS on most sites (and I need a good reason to enable it) for
at least the following reasons:

1\. It's safer for me.

2\. I've lived and will live in places with really shit Internet connections.

3\. It also conveniently gets rid of a bunch of crap (flashing stuff, ads,
flashing ads, etc.) without me having to do anything specifically.

4\. It blocks some tracking across the Internet (I also use RequestPolicy to
really drive that message home).

Other reasons as well. Edit: including it's too often used for unnecessary
fan-inducing overly-CPU using shit.

So you don't want me as a potential visitor? A tech-savey person? I'm not your
target audience? That's OK, there's loads of other sites on the web, and I'm
sure that yours is crap anyway. After all, if it wasn't crap, you'd have made
it work without JS.

Edit: And if you are stupid enough to not be able to make your site work
without JS, then at least put a noscript message explaining why your site is
special enough to require JS, and why I shouldn't just close the tab and go to
the next site. If you explain that it is necessary to make the froggles
boggle, I'll think about it more than if you just say "you need to enable
JavaScript or upgrade your browser". No, fuck you, I don't need to enable JS,
you need to make your site work without it. Displaying text and images in no
way requires JS, unless you're a real thicko who shouldn't be allowed to have
any commit privileges.

~~~
marcus_holmes
wow, that's really hostile. Why are you so angry about this?

~~~
raving-richard
Because people go and make sites that don't work with JS. Even though often
it's /more/ work to make the site not-work with JS. And then they justify it
by saying "well it's only 1 or 2 percent". It's not hard. And then
"professionals" (like the OP) think that everyone has the latest fancy
computer with super fast Internet (there are _developed_ countries with
rubbish Internet connections, let alone the less-developed countries that
often share a single megabit per second for the whole country).

It's like people saying "well blind people, they don't even count, like who
cares about accessibility anyway?". Fuck those people.

It's like the people who think it's just fine and dandy to have Google
Analytics and Facebook trackers, and all the rest. Even when they should know
better! You're contributing to a worse society by giving these companies so
much power!

Next these young white men will wonder why anyone cares if someone jokes about
"raping some bitch". I mean it's just a joke right? It's not serious. Why are
you getting so up tight. Geeze, women. PC is just going too far.

And I guess this is just for your. Because this has dropped of the front-page.
I think I need to go back to /., which while awful in it's own way, doesn't
have men too young to shave asking stupid questions.

~~~
marcus_holmes
Slightly hilarious, because /. is _full_ of men too young to shave asking
stupid questions.

I'm not asking a question about style or sites, or use of JS. I'm asking about
your anger. Are you really this angry over stuff? I have a lot of experience
with mental health issues and raging at the world because it doesn't behave
the way you'd like it to is a sure-fire path to any one of a number of
disorders.

I'm not going to tell you to calm down, because that's patronising. But maybe
you could take a look at your anger and ask yourself why you're so angry
(without blaming it on other people's behaviour).

------
ASneakyFox
It can be very useful and be used to add useful features.. but 90 percent of
javascript is for delivering unwanted annoyances like ads... or when not
malicious it can be used to annoy. making what looks like ordinary links to
unexpected things and now the browser back button doesnt go back because I was
actually clicking js links and operating a js app rather than clicking real
links..

There's a small subset of great uses of javascript. The rest is just hovering
toolboxes so I can easily "+1" the page despite not having a google+ account.

I prefer the web without the annoying stuff. Once js gets past the "look at
what I can do" phase id welcome it more openly.

------
mosselman
It depends on what you are making I think. If you are making a website, a site
like Youtube lets say, where the goal is to have as many people use it as
possible it would make sense for you to have it work with a variety of
limitations that users might have. If you are creating a very specific SAAS
then you are probably able to convince many users to run javascript if they
get something good back for it. In the end, if you are willing to pay
$50/month for something, you might also be willing to enable JS, while if you
are visiting a random website that doesn't work without JS you might think
'never mind, I don't need this'.

------
PaulRobinson
We're building an app in AngularJS right now and have had to think about this.

What we concluded was for our use case, if they weren't happy running
JavaScript, they probably weren't going to be happy with our content which is
live video streams.

We also took a long hard look at browser compatibility and decided we didn't
care about anything below IE9. That's a ballsy move to some people, but we are
a modern tech firm developing modern tech.

We're happy to build the best experience we can using the best technology, and
letting the market come to us. If they can't access it because of technology
reasons, well, somebody else can pick them up as an audience. If they can't
get a modern browser running on their Windows 95 box, they're probably going
to be happier installing Linux and something a bit more modern anyway.

The one area where there is some pushback is accessibility. I'm not just
talking about screen readers here, but colour blindness and navigational
coherence.

You don't get to choose what technology and capabilities your audience have,
but you do get to choose if you care about them.

In our case, we have decided the cost of supporting the 2%-5% we're actively
excluding would actively harm the rest of the audience in a noticeable way -
so we have chosen not to do it.

------
pwim
For website content (landing pages, articles, etc), you want it to work
without Javascript so that crawlers index it properly.

For web applications where you don't care about content being indexed, I
wouldn't worry about it being a javascript only application (and this is the
direction lots of apps are heading with frameworks like Ember.js, Angular.js,
and Meteor).

~~~
cupofjoakim
Even in these cases there are workarounds that prerender the page and serve
them to crawlers. They're not pleasant to work with, but we went with that
solution on an old site we did in angular.

------
TheLoneWolfling
Why would I disable JavaScript?

Several reasons, for me. (NoScript):

It renders many attacks moot. JS is complex - a lot of browser attacks rely on
it, either directly or as a trigger.

It really helps with privacy - for example, PanOptiClick currently says that I
leak ~12.3 bits of information. With JS enabled, I'm unique from fonts alone!

It helps with battery life - the number of times where I've wondered why I'm
losing battery life so rapidly, only to find some webpage is idiotically
running JS continuously...

It helps with data usage - not (generally) the JS itself, but the resources
pulled in by JS. Varies from website to website, but in general definitely
helps.

Webpages tend to load faster - I have iffy latency on this connection, and
cutting 2+ round-trips off of website loading times really helps.

Now, as to your comment "it would make more sense to use that time to make the
sites usable for visitors with disabilities": the simplest way to make sites
usable for visitors with disabilities is to make sure they are usable without
JS.

------
Al-Khwarizmi
If your PC is old and you don't have much CPU or RAM to spare, disabling
JavaScript gives a _big_ performance boost.

------
StephenGL
A site doesn't have to work completely without JavaScript, but its a good idea
to support primary flows without it and make sure your site loads and
basically functions. If you are talking about a product who's features and UI
require JavaScirpt then let the user know why the product can't be used and
move on.

------
andygmb
Wouldn't it depend on the type of audience you're trying to appeal to?

I would imagine the amount of people disabling JS would be a lot more coming
from a site like HN, compared to say, pintrest. It would be worth making sure
your site functions without JS if you know a lot of your audience will be
disabling JS.

------
CmonDev
Well, if it's a website then it should be optional. If it's a web application
then it shouldn't be. HTML and web are about linked documents after all. The
fact that industry decided to slap a scripting language on top and call it GUI
doesn't change the initial concept.

------
dsirijus
Depends on what you're building, I guess.

For particulary security sensitive areas, like banking web software, I'd very
much appreciate it working with JS disabled, since I take particular care on
security when visiting those (updated, secured, sandboxed OS within VM, not
used for anything else).

~~~
cupofjoakim
Good point, it sure makes sense for sites with higher security demands. I'm in
the ad world though, and there's not that much security risks involved in
campaign sites.

------
Isofarro
A user disabling JavaScript is only one piece of the no-JavaScript puzzle.

Here are some more:
[http://isolani.co.uk/blog/javascript/DisablingJavaScriptAski...](http://isolani.co.uk/blog/javascript/DisablingJavaScriptAskingTheWrongQuestion)

"To me it would make more sense to use that time to make the sites usable for
visitors with disabilities by including screen reader support and stuff like
that."

That assumes the choice is mutually exclusive, and also that we live in a
world of perfect delivery and execution of JavaScript.

Progressive enhancement not only ensures core functionality is available
regardless of JavaScript, but also when a hiccup of some sort happens on the
Web, the user in the process of buying from you isn't then stonewalled.

------
ad93611
I'd disable javascript sometimes because it takes up CPU cycles and memory on
my laptop and starves my other applications. GMail specifically has gotten so
bad that I've started using the HTML version of Gmail just to avoid all the
unnecessary javascript cruft.

------
brianbarker
I think you're spot on. I've noticed working with various people and ages that
we get stuck in our beliefs. Their information is outdated and they haven't
realized yet that screen readers and security are dated arguments.

The only hardcore crowd who disables Javascript entirely are people who are
paranoid about ads and the uber nerd (as seen here on HN).

As a web developer myself, I would never waste what busy time I have catering
to this audience. It's the same argument for why, at a certain point, you have
to make a clearcut decision about how far back into legacy browsers you care
to support. Large parts of Asia are stuck on IE6 because they have pirated
Windows XP, but most of us don't care and probably don't need to.

------
jonobird1
It really depends on your audience. As a general rule, you should try to make
your site allowable for javascript-disabled-noobs to still be able to go
through the primary functions of your site.

With that said, out of our 1m visitors a week, we have less than 0.1% with it
disabled. So it's a tradeoff - how long will it take you to code the extra to
allow those 0.1%, and does this require extra code and junk up.

We don't support any browsers once it gets to below 1% - aka IE7 so I don't
generally go out of my way to make sure everything works for non-javascript
users.

It used to be more important back in the day with the old school mobile
browsers etc with the good ol' WAP (as Jonnie says)

------
cmkrnl
There are some who would consider that the default behaviour of JavaScript in
web browsers is unsafe. They went off and made things like
[https://developers.google.com/caja/](https://developers.google.com/caja/) and
[http://www.adsafe.org/](http://www.adsafe.org/).

In my day to day web browsing I don't really see good use cases for
JavaScript. In addition, IMO rendering feels faster with JS disabled,
specially on mobile devices (iPhone 5s).

A part of your "sub 2%" includes some security researchers. Think about that
for a moment.

------
d01
It is obviously not feasible to make all full-blown web apps work without JS,
but many basic websites are also packed with annoying amounts of JS that do
not do the user any good (for details see the other comments).

------
mahdavi
Because it's prone to bad coding and makes my browser crash. Even sites made
by giants like google and facebook crash because of bad JS code.

Because web experience has become shitty ever since excessive usage of JS. I'm
sick of pages that download megabytes of JS libraries just to animate a button
hover. Thanks to CSS3, Now we can do all the needed UX/UI stuff without JS.
Make the web better by not using JS.

------
Grue3
>To me it would make more sense to use that time to make the sites usable for
visitors with disabilities by including screen reader support and stuff like
that.

If your site works without Javascript, you pretty much get this as a bonus.
Two birds with one stone.

Also, people use things other than the browser to access your content. Think
wget, curl, stuff like that. Do you have a reason to make it harder for them?

------
aaronbrethorst

        Are we really supposed to cater to the
        sub 2% that chooses not to use javascript?
    

To put this into proper perspective, IE 6 still has 4.2% of the browser
market, and I doubt the vast majority of us still support _that_
([https://www.modern.ie/en-us/ie6countdown](https://www.modern.ie/en-
us/ie6countdown))

So, to put it simply, no.

~~~
raving-richard
I don't support MSIE 6, or 7, or 8, or indeed any version of MSIE at all. But,
and here's where it's different to not supporting users without JavaScript
enabled, sites I make are still perfectly viewable in MSIE. And Lynx. And
other esoteric browsers.

Progressive enhancement/graceful degradation allows me to build sites that
work everywhere.

Not support users with JS turned off is exactly the opposite.

------
dimitar
It seems there are less reasons the more time passes. I thought that screen-
readers don't support javascript (imagining something like lynx), but it turns
out that its a myth by now: [http://a11yproject.com/posts/myth-screen-readers-
dont-use-ja...](http://a11yproject.com/posts/myth-screen-readers-dont-use-
javascript/)

~~~
SilkRoadie
I can confirm this. Recently got a complaint from a blind user about an
inaccessible form element that was buried deep deep within our JavaScript web
app. We learned a couple of things that day.

------
4lun
The best reason I've heard, is around redundancy/robustness.

HTML recovers from invalid syntax and missing resources, it'll still function
as a page displaying content with functioning links to other pages and such.

Same can't be said of JS, one missing resource or syntax issue and it can
break, which depending on how much you rely on it can leave the page unusable
and a user stuck.

------
untrothy
My primary browser has JS, cookies and plugins completely disabled, and when I
open a link and get nothing but a white page it is pretty frustrating. I
understand that with these settings i'm not going to see any fancy animations,
menus, ads, games, ecc but I at least expect to see some text.

I don't expect nothing else, if I can get some text I'm happy.

------
awjr
It really depends on your product. If you have an e-commerce site, you may
find that 5% of your browser base could be IE8. You still want them to spend
money.

It's very much a financial decision. Who is your target market and is it
reasonable to assume they will have a modern browser OR you can dictate that
they have a modern browser.

You then have the issue of accessibility.

------
sanketsaurav
IMO, it depends on the nature of application that you are building. If it's
going to be used by an audience that includes people stuck with ancient
browsers, then ignoring that 2% could be a loss. But in most general cases,
it's obviously better to cater to those ~17% people with reading disabilities
(I read this figure somewhere).

------
hysan
I disable it on my very very old netbook because the difference in page load
speed is huge in most cases. It has the added bonus of not firing up the CPU
as much so the laptop fan doesn't kick in as often. If a website needs
javascript, I either don't go to it anymore or selectively enable scripts to
get the site working.

------
extra88
Others have covered why one might disabled JavaScript. Adding to the reasons
why one shouldn't develop depending on JavaScript is clients using browsers
that may depend upon a proxy server, e.g. Amazon Silk and Opera Mini. Pages
loaded in these browsers may have only limited support for JavaScript.

------
nathan_f77
If your website is security or cryptography related, then you'll need to cater
to your demographic. These are the overly cautious types who use NoScript and
disable javascript everywhere.

Otherwise, I wouldn't worry about it.

------
enesunal
Wow. I see from comments, such an enormous many people disabling javascript!

~~~
yen223
Huge sampling bias here. Most people who keep Javascript enabled aren't going
to comment here.

~~~
enesunal
do I see correct? you are saying, paradox's just happened!

------
lightblade
Yes, I do that all the time when I'm watching porn. Both JavaScript and
cookies. It sure makes me feel a lot safer.

But, unless you're building a porn site, I wouldn't worry much about it.

------
eleitl
Because I want to read text, not run some unknown code on my machine.

If you're not showing plain text with JS off then you're bonkers, and I don't
really need your site.

------
exelib
I would disable javascript to stop loading social-crap-buttons and overbloated
sensless js. it's save my accu on mobile phone.

------
stewbrew
Besides security reasons, I turn it off on my mobile. 10kb of text load much
faster than 500kb of javascript and some text.

------
jackbauer
I have a JS blocker browser plugin/extension as standard, so I always end up
browsing sites with JS off.

------
wololo_
It would make sense back then when browser security was potatoes. Today, even
firefox made it hard to disable Javascript. In fact, our startup website
doesn't even load unless you have Javascript enabled.

Also, it's not sub 2% today, it's more like sub 0.01%.

------
nness
As an aside, if I recall, <noscript> was deprecated in HTML5.

~~~
Svip
Nay. Its status is currently candidate recommendation,[0][1] so I assume they
are trying to integrate it into the HTML5 standard as well.

Although, I am sure someone proposed to make it deprecated in HTML5.

[0] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/no...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/noscript)

[1] [http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#the-noscript-
ele...](http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#the-noscript-element)

------
joelbondurant
lynx rules, for HTML, the 90's internet technology.

------
powerranger
the reason I do it is because I dislike being tracked by marketing companies
and other entities. and it's pretty effective.

------
WorldWideWayne
Your main question seems to be the least relevant. You're speaking to the "2%"
because many of them hang out here and all you have now is reasons that they
turn off JS. I think what you really want to know is 1) What kinds of sites
can get away with failing completely when js is disabled? 2) Are there any
good estimates on the number of people who regularly browse with JS disabled?
(Because I'm not sure if your 2% estimate is correct.)

As for the primary question, personally I think that application-sites like
GMail, Google Docs, etc can get away with posting a polite message that "this
site requires Javascript". However, any site where text content is the main
attraction should show the content without Javascript being required (so,
News, Blogs, etc).

However, if you're working for people who were doing web development in the
90's, who insist that every single feature of every single page should work
without Javascript...you should run. Those people are dinosaurs and they're
living in the past.

