forum-issue: editing not possible without JavaScript
mmm
Posts: 19
I would not have reported this, since I'm used to people not caring about people who browse the web without JavaScript, possibly being unaware of their existence, but in http://forums.parallax.com/discussion/comment/1338558/#Comment_1338558, I just read this sentence:
The Parallax Discussion Forums use cookies and javascript; for the best browsing experience they must be enabled. Any error or unexpected behavior that results from a user intentionally choosing to disable either of these features is not the responsibility of Parallax or its moderators to investigate or resolve.
This reads like an insult to anybody who intentionally disables unnecassary and abusable web browser functionality, especially in a context where a switch to a new forum software has just been made. A declaration by those who made such a switch, that they a not responsible for the consequences of their choice of an incapable piece of software, in a tone that basically accuses the user of being responsible himself for his lesser experience is grossly impolite.
I just wanted to put forward my opinion, that it *is* Parallax's responsibility to investigate and resolve issues, that render simple functionality like editing posts impossible without JavaScript, even if the company *chooses* not to act on its responsibilty. The user, in my opinion, cannot be at fault for disabling non-essential but abusable hipster functionality and doesn't deserve to read wording that implies so in forum use guidelines. So this issue could essentially be resolved by changing said wording.
The Parallax Discussion Forums use cookies and javascript; for the best browsing experience they must be enabled. Any error or unexpected behavior that results from a user intentionally choosing to disable either of these features is not the responsibility of Parallax or its moderators to investigate or resolve.
This reads like an insult to anybody who intentionally disables unnecassary and abusable web browser functionality, especially in a context where a switch to a new forum software has just been made. A declaration by those who made such a switch, that they a not responsible for the consequences of their choice of an incapable piece of software, in a tone that basically accuses the user of being responsible himself for his lesser experience is grossly impolite.
I just wanted to put forward my opinion, that it *is* Parallax's responsibility to investigate and resolve issues, that render simple functionality like editing posts impossible without JavaScript, even if the company *chooses* not to act on its responsibilty. The user, in my opinion, cannot be at fault for disabling non-essential but abusable hipster functionality and doesn't deserve to read wording that implies so in forum use guidelines. So this issue could essentially be resolved by changing said wording.
Comments
What's wrong with cookies? As far as I know there is no way to maintain a session without cookies. Well, one can use hidden input tags but that just makes session hijacking easier.
What's with the "hipster functionality" accusation? That label certainly does not apply here, this style and operation of this forum software dates back a decade or more before the term "hipster" existed.
If security is the ultimate worry that is on your mind we should start with demanding HTTPS only connections. Without that nothing can be trusted, whether there is JS or cookies on the page or not.
Javascript is often misunderstood and confused with Java.
Robust web pages depend on Javascript - the web would be a dull, dull place without it...
If I had my way a web page would never be able to fetch anything except from the server I have pointed it at, no scripts from advertisers, no google analylics, no gravatar, no Facebook login buttons.
It's annoying that Java and Javascript are so confusingly named. I think JavaScript is infinitely nicer to work with than Java, and a more sophisticated language as well. It's not the language that is the problem here, it's the permissive way a browser will run code in your web page from any shady back street operator.
@potatohead
How do you make the evaluation that your "actual risk is low"? No seriously, is that just a gut feeling or have you done a risk analysis some how?
What I do is compartmentalize my various activities. Discussion, for example, gets broken down into a few zones, and most of those are pseudonyms that aren't too hard to link to who I am. Just hard enough that I don't catch a lot of garbage I don't need to. There are a few, quite serious ones that I do make sure I'm not known at all, and a couple with real name. Risks on those vary.
Professional activity gets a high degree of security on my part, and I'm generally ultra-conservative about most of it. Get the work done, get the interactions done, low risk, high reward as I can.
Machines, services, and other things that could impact me financially, or trigger data loss, or some other ugly thing get a conservative treatment too, or I marginalize that somehow. Multiple repositories, reduce need for the data, etc... be able to generate it quickly.
There are some things I simply won't do. Online banking is one of those. Risks no matter what are just too high. Same for online purchases. I will do them, but in a careful way on an account I limit to limit risks. Cash most of the time is the norm for me.
At any given time, I've thought through what I'm doing and what the potential impacts could be and I respond according to my appetite for said risks.
One aspect of that is, "am I a meaningful target?" If not, I have few worries. If I am, can I marginalize that, or do I actually have to worry?
Here? Not a worry. Seriously. I'm having fun, or learning something, etc... If it gets serious, where there really is a risk or potential cost, I treat it much differently.
Gravitar, Google analytics, FaceBook, et al. can be a PITA. I was miffed over Gravitar as that crossed one of my compartments forcing me to do a little work. It's done now, and I'm back to don't care much as it should be for places like this.
All in all, I try to make the serious investments in time and energy count. Life is short, and if I don't have to worry much, I try not to. That is a bit selfish. I was less selfish about that some time back, but what I found is the returns were dubious. I will however participate in efforts to improve things. Advocacy / action campaigns are something I take a little of that "no worries" time I gained by not having so many little worries and use to participate in those. For me, it's a great balance. And maybe that isn't so selfish given the overall reluctance I see toward advocacy and action generally speaking.
We don't do that much here, unless it's a serious tech issue. So it's not discussed much and that's fine. We do what we do and I wouldn't change that actually. But know it's a consideration of mine. Gotta put a little time into the civics and politics. It's speak or live by those who did speak.
The problem with JavaScript is that it's used to deliver a huge amount of internet advertising and for that reason it's blocked by default on my machines. There are fewer than 20 sites on my whitelist.
No cookies are retained. They are cleared every time the browser is closed.
Ghostery is always running to hopefully make things a bit harder for the trackers.
Ah, now I see. The problem was "editing" a comment, not "posting" a comment. I just tried and no, you cannot edit without scripting.
By the way, why does that little gear icon pop up a window when you click it that has only one choice? If the only option is to edit, why not just go there immediately without the extra clickage? Does it provide other options somewhere else?
I use AdBlock Pro to marginalize this. Some ADS, the reasonable ones that don't cause trouble or get in the way, come through, and it's a nice compromise. I personally don't mind people helping to fund the net with ADS. It's that, or they must do it without compensation, or micropayments. ADS are kind of easy, unless they aren't.
But, if you are not wanting any at all, that's fine. A white listing here isn't any risk to you.
Must resist initiating JavaScript religious war.
We lack the time and resources to investigate the issues that arise due to user modifications to their own browsing experience. Users are still welcomed and encouraged to bring such issues to our attention by emailing webmaster@parallax.com or posting an issue report, but please understand that if the unmodified/intended browsing experience is unaffected by these issues they might not be addressed.
That entry was included in the new rules for increased transparency. Our guidelines and rules are not written to be either polite or impolite; they are simply rules and guidelines. The wording will not be changed.
This thread will now be sunk.