Since when is JS [statistically significantly] not available? Even screen readers interpret DOM updates (though graphs are no good for blind people anyway).
2021: NoScript has between 100,000 and 1,000,000 installs on Chrome[1], and approximately 330,000 installs on Firefox[2]. NoScript is a "recommended extension" by Mozilla, and is one of the very few addons available for Mobile Firefox. (newer stats, and other reliable sources, would be appreciated. Statcounter doesn't yet reveal no-JS usage)
Internal
2015: ~3% using browsers that do not support JavaScript per Analytics/Reports/Clients without JavaScript#Preliminary results
2016: ~7% of visitors to Wikipedia Portal do not request JavaScript resources per File:Browsers, Geography, and JavaScript Support on Wikipedia Portal.pdf and File:Analysis of Wikipedia Portal Traffic and JavaScript Support.pdf
2020: Per T253033 (methodology in T234865), 13.84% of sub-A tier Desktop, and 36.48% sub-A tier mobile web page views are from browsers without JS support.
2021: Measuring the % of edits coming from users without JS enabled across all Wikimedia wikis: ~6% of logged-in users and ~1% of logged-out users (~5% total). Per T240697.
Perhaps the pervasive use of JS forces people to enable it. I disable it and when things work, they are fast and wonderfully ad-free (or greatly cut down; I do further ad blocking). JS is a security risk IMO.
It's gonna depend a lot on your visitors and what kind of website you have. HN will have more users than average with JS disabled for example, as it's a very technology oriented user base. The amount of people who log into HN will be even more likely to have JS disabled than the ones that visits without logging in.
If you're doing a website about privacy/security and have a lot of visitors using Tor, you'll have a even higher user base that has JS disabled, as that's the default settings for Tor Browser.
If you're doing a website about ponies for your local community, you're unlikely to have a high amount of visitors with JS disabled.
> It's gonna depend a lot on your visitors and what kind of website you have. HN will have more users than average with JS disabled for example, as it's a very technology oriented user base. The amount of people who log into HN will be even more likely to have JS disabled than the ones that visits without logging in.
Yes but that's a very transient situation, surely those people can reenable JS in less than two clicks to fix their browser configuration?
zasdffaa|3 years ago
2021: NoScript has between 100,000 and 1,000,000 installs on Chrome[1], and approximately 330,000 installs on Firefox[2]. NoScript is a "recommended extension" by Mozilla, and is one of the very few addons available for Mobile Firefox. (newer stats, and other reliable sources, would be appreciated. Statcounter doesn't yet reveal no-JS usage)
Internal
2015: ~3% using browsers that do not support JavaScript per Analytics/Reports/Clients without JavaScript#Preliminary results
2016: ~7% of visitors to Wikipedia Portal do not request JavaScript resources per File:Browsers, Geography, and JavaScript Support on Wikipedia Portal.pdf and File:Analysis of Wikipedia Portal Traffic and JavaScript Support.pdf
2020: Per T253033 (methodology in T234865), 13.84% of sub-A tier Desktop, and 36.48% sub-A tier mobile web page views are from browsers without JS support.
2021: Measuring the % of edits coming from users without JS enabled across all Wikimedia wikis: ~6% of logged-in users and ~1% of logged-out users (~5% total). Per T240697.
Perhaps the pervasive use of JS forces people to enable it. I disable it and when things work, they are fast and wonderfully ad-free (or greatly cut down; I do further ad blocking). JS is a security risk IMO.
johannes1234321|3 years ago
A network connection is a security risk.
The question is whether the benefits outweighs the risk added by enabling it.
For me the benefit of disabling JS is more in privacy and disabling annoying user experience. JavaScriot runtimes are quite well audited meanwhile.
capableweb|3 years ago
If you're doing a website about privacy/security and have a lot of visitors using Tor, you'll have a even higher user base that has JS disabled, as that's the default settings for Tor Browser.
If you're doing a website about ponies for your local community, you're unlikely to have a high amount of visitors with JS disabled.
So TLDR: it depends.
vntok|3 years ago
Yes but that's a very transient situation, surely those people can reenable JS in less than two clicks to fix their browser configuration?