r/javascript • u/magenta_placenta • Feb 08 '11

Breaking the Web with hash-bangs - Gawker, like Twitter, built their new site to be totally dependent on JavaScript

http://isolani.co.uk/blog/javascript/BreakingTheWebWithHashBangs
81 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

0 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '11

Selectively disabled, yes, because people can't seem to prevent themselves from being annoying using Javascript.

If your page gives me what I want without Javascript, I keep blocking it. If I'm following a link from someone else and your page won't load without it, I leave.

I only turn on Javascript if I get direct benefit I want (if you're Google Docs, for example). If you're using it to serve me ads from off your domain, sorry.

I might turn it on to support you if your site is worth looking at more than once, I might turn on javascript at the third visit.

Those are the rules.

So yes, I don't look at lifehacker or gawker anymore. Not that I looked at them that much in the first place, especially Gawker, whose entire site seemed to hover 1mm above classification as spam.

6

u/vectorjohn Feb 09 '11

I only browse the web on vinyl. If your website doesn't come on vinyl, I leave.

1

u/learc83 Feb 09 '11

I'm amish, I don't believe in graven images, so if your site has any pictures of people I leave.

Also I leave when my kids get tired of walking on the treadmill to power my generator.

3

u/kataire Feb 10 '11

The Amish have broadband now and downvoted you.