Re: duckduckgo
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 22:52:07 +0200
<tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:35:53PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 14:20:08 -0500
> > Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I personally find that JavaScript and cookies rarely provide *ME* any
> > > functionality of interest. I surf with both disabled. I don't
> > > experience problems I see often reported. YMMV
> >
> > It does vary indeed. It seems to me that hardly any sites work without
> > JavaScript these days. Web designers cannot even make text appear on
> > some sites without JS.
>
> This is actually for me a filter criterion: if a site doesn't work
> with javascript, chances are high that I avoid it. I do make some
> exceptions, but very few.
>
> I do accept some degraded performance, but that's it.
Question: is this due to a belief that such sites are (at least for
your use cases) at best marginally more useful than their non-JS
utilizing alternatives, or due to a desire to punish such sites or an
ethical objection to them? I certainly need to use numerous sites (bill
paying, banking, etc.) that require JS to function.
Celejar
Reply to: