javascript polluting websites

Aroddo

Emperor
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
1,127
Location
Sauerkrautistan
So, I like to read the Huffington Post. And l like to do it with adblock on for sanity of mind. Also, to speed things up, I occasionally block javascript.
And while it's quite annoying to create exceptions for every other new site you visit, you get to keep all the unnecessary scripts off your computer.

Now, after watching a video on the Sideboob Gazette I noticed a sudden spike in scriptblock notifications. Mostly webbugs and all that social crap, but still ... sometimes I think websites embed third party code waaaay to generously:

 

Attachments

  • scriptsafe.png
    scriptsafe.png
    335.3 KB · Views: 252
Blocking js is a smart move if you are on very slow or capped connections. Some sites, such as T-mobile, have several megabits wroth of javascript which try to load immediately.
 
I don't see blocking javascript by default as a particular reasonable move, it's an integral part of the web. Cookies on the other hand, you really should be whitelisting.

sadly most javascripts are not an integral part of their particular website. too often scripts simply download code from a third party site without control over what it does.
could be harmless but annoying advertising, could be harmful code.

as a rule, i usually allow the current site domain and decide the rest on a case by case basis.
 
sadly most javascripts are not an integral part of their particular website. too often scripts simply download code from a third party site without control over what it does.
could be harmless but annoying advertising, could be harmful code.

as a rule, i usually allow the current site domain and decide the rest on a case by case basis.

This all applies to html as well, do you block any third-party html from loading?

Even the very simplest site I make is going to need third party js for jquery and probably some for fonts (either google fonts or typekit) - blocking the fonts is going to make the site look ugly, and blocking jquery is going to break all the current site js anyway.
 
This all applies to html as well, do you block any third-party html from loading?

Even the very simplest site I make is going to need third party js for jquery and probably some for fonts (either google fonts or typekit) - blocking the fonts is going to make the site look ugly, and blocking jquery is going to break all the current site js anyway.

No one is forcing you to use fonts or any other resources hosted by third parties. If you do it for a small site, it is out of lazyness. I've seen good, professional web sites which use javascript extensively and did not load any from third parties.

I've also seen big commercial web sites that load scripts from literally dozens of others but that's not lazyness, that's data mining and advertising.
 
No one is forcing you to use fonts or any other resources hosted by third parties. If you do it for a small site, it is out of lazyness. I've seen good, professional web sites which use javascript extensively and did not load any from third parties.

I've also seen big commercial web sites that load scripts from literally dozens of others but that's not lazyness, that's data mining and advertising.

You obviously don't know web design/development.
 
Should probably turn off css along with images and javascript then.


In contrast to js or images though, CSS files hardly takes any extra time to load in addition to basic html so I let it.

But ask yourself. Would you rather wait 5 minutes for a JS excessive site to load or simply turn off JS and have it load in 20 seconds?

Have you guys considered using Lynx?
I have looked at it yes, but due to my slow connection I would loose more time downloading the compilers than I would save.
 
hmm.... i think you people don't get that you can selectively block only those scripts you really don't want.
with certain addons like ScriptSafe of NoScript you can greenlight or block entire domains or just specific scripts.

you can disable all the crap like popup surveys, social like-me bars and other annoying stuff that adblock doesn't catch without destroying the site layout.

it gets a bit annoying if polluting sites also act as content providers, though. that requires more fine tuning.
 
You obviously don't know web design/development.


I know good web design and bad web desing, I've seen both done for large web sites in production. And I'll leave this argument at that because there is nothing else I can answer to your blank statements.
 
But ask yourself. Would you rather wait 5 minutes for a JS excessive site to load or simply turn off JS and have it load in 20 seconds?

I wouldn't use a connection where I had to wait 20 seconds for a site to load.

I know good web design and bad web desing, I've seen both done for large web sites in production. And I'll leave this argument at that because there is nothing else I can answer to your blank statements.

It's completely unreasonable to host your own fonts or libraries, not to mention a humongous waste of bandwidth for everyone involved.

hmm.... i think you people don't get that you can selectively block only those scripts you really don't want.
with certain addons like ScriptSafe of NoScript you can greenlight or block entire domains or just specific scripts.

It's just not worth the hassle though, disabling javascript breaks pretty much every site, I've got better things to do with my time than whitelisting every site I visit.

you can disable all the crap like popup surveys, social like-me bars and other annoying stuff that adblock doesn't catch without destroying the site layout.

My adblocker doesn't miss any of those.
 
It's completely unreasonable to host your own fonts or libraries, not to mention a humongous waste of bandwidth for everyone involved

Can you explain:
1) why it is unreasonable to host your own libraries.
2) why it is a waste of bandwidth to host your own libraries.

I'll antecipane any discussion and point out that:
1) storage and memory are now cheap for libraries that in any case are not very big. Indeed if they were not such libraries would not be offered for "free" (with some strings attached) online.

2) bandwidth is going to be used by the client regardless of who hosts the libraries. It may cross more or less nodes, dependnding on the effectiveness of the distributed infrastructure of the third-party provider of libraries you'd rather use vs. your own distribution of infrastructure or degree of locality of the expected visitors.

Your blanket statements are just not defensible except in some very specific circunstances.
 
Can you explain:
1) why it is unreasonable to host your own libraries.
2) why it is a waste of bandwidth to host your own libraries.

People will have jquery from CDNs cached already.

I should have specified to exclusively host your own libraries - you should have a local fallback, but primarily use a proper source.
 
I wouldn't use a connection where I had to wait 20 seconds for a site to load.

Best of both worlds eh? Sometimes you don't have that choice.

I only disable images and js on sites that I infrequently visit or are visiting due to a search engine's results. Once the site is cached there is no reason not to view it in it's full glory. ;)
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom