Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to)

On 2012-05-11, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 11:52 PM, markspace wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 6:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>> Sure I often have to enable JS, but only after I've seen the site first.
>> If it looks dodgy, I just leave. And often I can still click on a few
>> links or read an article without JS. It's rare I'll enable JS if I just
>> need one thing from a site.
>
> That does not sound as 2012 to me.

I think it's generally well accepted that using protection may detract
from the experience somewhat, but this does not automatically make it
a bad idea to do so. :-)

Personally, if someone expects me to spend my time on their website
they better provide a compelling reason for me to want to do so, and
gratuitous dependence on JS just puts me off. In general I consider it
a good early indicator of a terrible web designer: "You need JS to
click this link", right so this guy taught himself web design in his
own dreams.

Bent D.
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:09:48 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
<bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:

>On 2012-05-11, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 11:52 PM, markspace wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2012 6:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure I often have to enable JS, but only after I've seen the site first.
>>> If it looks dodgy, I just leave. And often I can still click on a few
>>> links or read an article without JS. It's rare I'll enable JS if I just
>>> need one thing from a site.
>>
>> That does not sound as 2012 to me.

I decide on site use by something other than fashion.

There are many Websites that are not decked out in a fashionable
manner but that are very useful. I prefer them.

>I think it's generally well accepted that using protection may detract
>from the experience somewhat, but this does not automatically make it
>a bad idea to do so. :-)
>
>Personally, if someone expects me to spend my time on their website
>they better provide a compelling reason for me to want to do so, and
>gratuitous dependence on JS just puts me off. In general I consider it
>a good early indicator of a terrible web designer: "You need JS to
>click this link", right so this guy taught himself web design in his
>own dreams.

Exactly. Except that the JS-to-click design might also be due to
a gratuitous complexity bug (in the coder).

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On 11/05/2012 12:41 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>> Personally, if someone expects me to spend my time on their website
>> they better provide a compelling reason for me to want to do so, and
>> gratuitous dependence on JS just puts me off. In general I consider it
>> a good early indicator of a terrible web designer: "You need JS to
>> click this link", right so this guy taught himself web design in his
>> own dreams.
>
> Exactly. Except that the JS-to-click design might also be due to
> a gratuitous complexity bug (in the coder).

I'm convinced that in most cases it's deliberate: punish users who
disable JS and force them to turn it on so they can be harassed with
annoying animated JS-reliant ads and crap.

Of course, Adblock Plus + enable JS and the user still gets the last laugh.

--
public final class JSnarker
extends JComponent
A JSnarker is an NNTP-aware component that asynchronously provides
snarky output when the Ego.needsPuncturing() event is fired in cljp.

On 12/05/2012 1:30 AM, javax.swing.JSnarker wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 12:41 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>> Personally, if someone expects me to spend my time on their website
>>> they better provide a compelling reason for me to want to do so, and
>>> gratuitous dependence on JS just puts me off. In general I consider it
>>> a good early indicator of a terrible web designer: "You need JS to
>>> click this link", right so this guy taught himself web design in his
>>> own dreams.
>>
>> Exactly. Except that the JS-to-click design might also be due to
>> a gratuitous complexity bug (in the coder).
>
> I'm convinced that in most cases it's deliberate: punish users who
> disable JS and force them to turn it on so they can be harassed with
> annoying animated JS-reliant ads and crap.

And so they can be tracked!

On 5/10/2012 11:27 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>> Maybe you should learn a bit about JavaScript before writing about it.
>
> It is just true that whenever there is a security hole in a
> browser with no fix yet, I read »in the meantime, one can
> disable JavaScript as a workaround«.
>
> Some years ago, I started to collect such reports as a
> proof. But then I ceased to collect more such reports,
> because I needed my time for other things. Thus, when my
> records are dated now, this does not mean that there are no
> more such reports today; I just do not collect them anymore.
> If I would have continued, the list would be very much longer.
> Having said this, here is a copy of a dated post of mine
> with regard to JavaScript security from about 2006. At its
> end, there is a long list of said reports.

[actual list omitted]

It is a long list.

But you can also find a long list for Java applets and Flash Player.

Even "not really executing code" plugins like AcrobatReader have
had security holes.

Arne

On 5/11/2012 5:09 AM, Bent C Dalager wrote:
> On 2012-05-11, Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 11:52 PM, markspace wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2012 6:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure I often have to enable JS, but only after I've seen the site first.
>>> If it looks dodgy, I just leave. And often I can still click on a few
>>> links or read an article without JS. It's rare I'll enable JS if I just
>>> need one thing from a site.
>>
>> That does not sound as 2012 to me.
>
> I think it's generally well accepted that using protection may detract
> from the experience somewhat, but this does not automatically make it
> a bad idea to do so. :-)

Correct.

> Personally, if someone expects me to spend my time on their website
> they better provide a compelling reason for me to want to do so, and
> gratuitous dependence on JS just puts me off. In general I consider it
> a good early indicator of a terrible web designer: "You need JS to
> click this link", right so this guy taught himself web design in his
> own dreams.

????

Considering AJAX heavy web sites to be terrible designed
it not exactly the trend seen on the web.

Arne

On 5/11/2012 12:41 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:09:48 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
> <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-05-11, Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2012 11:52 PM, markspace wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2012 6:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sure I often have to enable JS, but only after I've seen the site first.
>>>> If it looks dodgy, I just leave. And often I can still click on a few
>>>> links or read an article without JS. It's rare I'll enable JS if I just
>>>> need one thing from a site.
>>>
>>> That does not sound as 2012 to me.
>
> I decide on site use by something other than fashion.
>
> There are many Websites that are not decked out in a fashionable
> manner but that are very useful. I prefer them.

That is your privilege.

Just be prepared that the share of web sites working without
JS will drop every year.

Arne

On Sun, 20 May 2012 22:37:28 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:

>On 5/11/2012 12:41 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:09:48 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
>> <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-05-11, Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2012 11:52 PM, markspace wrote:
>>>>> On 5/8/2012 6:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure I often have to enable JS, but only after I've seen the site first.
>>>>> If it looks dodgy, I just leave. And often I can still click on a few
>>>>> links or read an article without JS. It's rare I'll enable JS if I just
>>>>> need one thing from a site.
>>>>
>>>> That does not sound as 2012 to me.
>>
>> I decide on site use by something other than fashion.
>>
>> There are many Websites that are not decked out in a fashionable
>> manner but that are very useful. I prefer them.
>
>That is your privilege.
>
>Just be prepared that the share of web sites working without
>JS will drop every year.

I have not noticed that, but it really does not matter. If the
Websites that I find useful tend not to use JavaScript, then I do not
have to enable JavaScript very often. It does not matter to me if the
proportion of useful sites to non-useful sites is low. What matters
is the number of useful sites, and yes, I do find enough of them.

I have found that a Website requiring JavaScript for simple
functionality is a fairly good indication that the Website will not be
useful to me.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On 2012-05-21, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> On 5/11/2012 5:09 AM, Bent C Dalager wrote:
>> Personally, if someone expects me to spend my time on their website
>> they better provide a compelling reason for me to want to do so, and
>> gratuitous dependence on JS just puts me off. In general I consider it
>> a good early indicator of a terrible web designer: "You need JS to
>> click this link", right so this guy taught himself web design in his
>> own dreams.
>
> ????
>
> Considering AJAX heavy web sites to be terrible designed
> it not exactly the trend seen on the web.

That's ok; I often find myself at odds with the general perception.

What I do find striking is that this is 2012, more than 15 years after
HTML had standardised forms (<input>, HTML 2.0 I believe) and they are
/still/ playing catch-up to the established GUI frameworks such as
Motif, Windows, etc. Tab order, menu and tool bars, hotkeys/shortcuts,
i18n, layout, drag and drop, list selection: mostly a hodge podge of
what the developer chanced upon in some library somewhere and what he
could be bothered to hack together himself. Just such a simple matter
as standardising how to handle the browser's "Back" button in a web
app – cutting edge rocket science, it would seem.

Usually a new technology is reasonably mature after ten years, but
getting a proper GUI on web pages is taking forever.

(Yes, I sometimes do turn on JavaScript. )

Cheers,

Bent D.
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

On 2012-05-21, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
> Just be prepared that the share of web sites working without
> JS will drop every year.

This is unlikely to become an actual problem before AJAX has proper
support (that developers actually /use/) for accessibility options
required by law.

And once that is in place, maybe GUI on web pages is finally mature
anyway.

Cheers,

Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

On 21/05/2012 3:26 PM, Bent C Dalager wrote:
> Usually a new technology is reasonably mature after ten years, but
> getting a proper GUI on web pages is taking forever.

I thought you hated GUIs and refused to use any UI more advanced than a
screen-oriented console mode one such as a Unix shell, vi, or emacs?