Ask HN: Do you browse the web with JavaScript disabled?

Largely, yes. I'm a heavy user of uMatrix, so I can toggle JS and other resources by domain. By default, JS is off, but if I trust a site enough (which is a low bar), I'll turn it on for the domain and most CDNs, but not for any GTM/FB domains.

I am one of the few exceptions not the rule so take what I say with a grain of salt. I browse the web with JavaScript and external fonts disabled. I also force every site to use the same font and font size.

I enable JavaScript if I know who is running a site and where their company is located and/or if I have a binding contract with them. Even then I use disposable containers [1] for those sites and run bleachbit before/after visiting such sites and use sqlite3 to clear visit_time from places.sqlite. I launch Firefox from firejail [2] with AppArmor enforcement.

[1] - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con...

[2] - https://github.com/netblue30/firejail

As much as I can weather, yes. Sometimes things become so broken I allow more to run than I'd prefer, when really I should just go elsewhere

No, and to be frank, I’ve never known anyone who has disabled JavaScript in my personal and professional lives.

I recently gave it a shot on an old, sluggish iPad. I was blown away at how many websites just…don’t work, or only partially render.

It’s part of the modern web stack, and catering to those who disable JS is like catering to those who run FreeBSD - they exist, and they’re smart people, but their numbers are so small that catering to them makes no sense from a business perspective (unless they are a target demo).

With that said, removing the interpreted JavaScript runtime from your site is a laudable goal and things should be smoother, faster, and lighter.

Yes, I keep JS disabled by default. For most websites, I will simply not allow it to be executed at all. If this breaks the website, I don't use the website.

For the small set of sites that are actually important to me, I selectively allow the minimum number of scripts required to make the site function well enough to do what I need it to do.

Mostly yes: I use JS-blocking browser extensions, which (mostly) offer domain-by-domain control over JS loading. And only enable JS when the risk/reward ratio seems low enough.

Between the browser security issues & resource usage, anti-improved speed & UX, etc. - enabling JS is mostly not worth it to me.

(Yes, doing this kinda rules out a fair number of web sites for me. But with ~10,000x more content on the web than I could view in my remaining mortal years anyway...ruling out a lot of sites is a feature, not a bug.)

This isn't going to be a very useful survey since the headline here will only attract the attention of people (like myself) that have JS disabled.

That said, we're normally undercounted because JS itself is used to do the counting so I guess this balances things out.

If a site doesn't display without JS then my first move is to toggle off CSS and see if I can read it. If I can't I check source to see if I can read it. If I can't I close the tab.

Yes, where possible.

What I really want is a CPU budget for websites, you can run 2M operations or something, and then you're put to sleep.

For the most part, yes.

I usually leave, and if I can't find what I need somewhere else, I may come back and fiddle either with CSS or even enable JS during that session only.

Rarely does a website make it to the list were it's always enabled. This is true for personal and work.

I use NoScript and whitelist JS on a site by site basis (usually temporarily). For an app/product that I'm using regularly I'll whitelist likely looking domains until it works, and save those settings.

I came here to say no, I don't for the silent majority. There's a large amount of pain coming with being so vigilant about security. I'd rather spend my time and energy else where.

I am in the whitelist camp.

But reading this thread sparked a thought: could browsers handle server side handling (e.g. submit buttons) in the way React and alike frameworks work: instead of rebuilding the page from scratch diff the current DOM and the DOM for the new page and apply the diff in a smooth transition with animations?

I believe it is important to support non-JS user agents.

For example entire Kagi Search runs with no JavaScript enabled in the browser. We see JavaScript as a way to enhance client experience, not create it. So bascially Kagi is in 'lite' mode by default.

> Do people browse the internet with JavaScript disabled?

Some people do (and you'll get a disproportionate number of them here), but unless yours is a niche product particularly aimed at such people, they're an insignificant number in comparison to the billions who've never even heard of such a thing.

YES.

I have it enabled for certain sites I frequently use, otherwise it's disabled by default.

It makes browsing much smoother IMO.

I don't, no, because it's just not practical to do so in 2022, but I do love sites that ditch it, on principal.

I do browse with JS off by default (usually FF with noscript, though occasionally with simpler web browsers), often leaving pages if they require JS while they shouldn't and I can avoid those, and I know others who do the same.

Maybe a poll would be more suitable for this kind of a question though, and I guess there must be some already collected statistics around.

Edit: Speaking of "LiteMode" and accessibility in general, I think it's also nice to not go too heavy on CSS or assumptions about fonts. I used to override CSS (browsed quite a lot in the dark, so enforced a light-on-dark theme), to use textual browsers, and still disabling web fonts and setting a minimal font size, which occasionally leads to slightly messed up markup and related issues. Though those sorts of things tend to be covered in various accessibility guidelines.

I did when I was unhappy with my phone’s battery life, but within a week honestly I found enough problems with sites that I had to enable it.

I use uMatrix with a relatively strict set of blocks. By default, I allow first-party JS, and a handful of 3rd party CDNs. This is _even worse_ than browsing with JS off for most sites, as the <noscript> fallbacks don't work, but usually things are broken in one way or another because everybody depends on a ton of external libraries and services. I mostly do this to keep myself aware of the relationships between sites, and to disable the annoying "give us your email" popups that so many sites have these days.

No. It is an ever increasingly esoteric practice.

That 20% more work could be put in to improving the main product instead.

No

I use ff+uBO with js disabled by default, and then I peace-out when I see blank white pages that don't even render using reader view, temporarily allow if I think it'll be worthwhile, and whitelist for sites I either use regularly or deem trustworthy enough. I have surprisingly few websites whitelisted, and I don't usually toggle it. Things like Nitter and Teddit work just fine. Wikipedia and HN don't need it. Many news sites don't really break without it, and if they do then that is my peace-out territory. And some even offer text-only, like Lite CNN and text.npr.org to name a couple.

What do I actually need javascript for? It actually is really easy to do without for the majority of what I use the web for anyway. YMMV.

Yes! Finally got back to noscript (for firefox) after a break and I think the "enable js from this domain" is the lesser burden compared to all the other nag that just seem to disappear.

Also, it's a positive feedback loop for your web paranoia... seeing all the crap that gets loaded.

No

Yes, I usually disable JavaScripts. Sometimes I also disable CSS, too (and sometimes this allows web pages to be displayed that aren't displayed if JavaScripts are disabled).

You should make a version without JavaScripts and minimal (if at all) CSS.

Occasionally some things are going to require JavaScripts; in the case that they really do, you should ensure that documentation, links with other protocols/file-formats (if any), etc, should be visible and accessible even without JavaScripts, too.