What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 128 Stack Exchange communities.

I used Firefox today in which I previously enabled JavaScript (in NoScript) on stackoverflow.com. When I tried to upvote a question, I couldn't - the count would not change. I remembered that a new domain was added, so I enabled it too, and then upvotes (and everything else) was working.

Perhaps the red bar which shows when JavaScript is disabled should shown if the user has JavaScript disabled on sstatic.net?

share|improve this question
3  
I agree. It is a shame that the same site that sends us google-analytics and quantserver scripts also sends us scripts from other hosts that are vital for its good functioning. I have NoScript configured so that things work well with most decent sites. google-analytics is always blocked, quantserve is always block, but the host whose address I have typed myself on the browser, like *.stackoverflow.com for example, are always enabled. Now superuser and stackoverflow sadly rely on 3rd-party scripts whose importance for the good functioning of the user interface has to be manually verified. –  user150256 Aug 20 '10 at 13:18

4 Answers 4

up vote 6 down vote accepted

I kind of agree with your request, but at the same time believe that if you choose to run NoScript, then it's your responsibility to take care of stuff like this.

I am a web developer as well, and would most likely deny support to users (of a free site!) who choose to limit their browser capabilities.

Sure, Javascript can be evil and annoying, but is a standard feature one would expect a client browser to have.

share|improve this answer
3  
But isn't SO about making the Best User Experience? If there is a red bar for Javascript warning on stackoverflow.com so it should also warn for sstatic.net. For coherence sake at least. –  Decio Lira Aug 17 '09 at 0:59
1  
Sure ads can be evil and annoying, but they along with Javascript are standard features one would expect a client browser to allow. Right? Frankly, I think that if SO is going to reference an external library, they should have some place on their site where they mention that fact so that sane users who black list before they white list do not block said library. –  Thomas Feb 18 '10 at 8:05
1  
Wow. What a bad attitude. I await the day when NoScript blacklisting is a standard browser feature. There is definitely some nefarious JavaScript out there, even from big players like Google. And, that's ignoring the vast amount of questionable JavaScript. –  downbeat May 19 '12 at 3:30

I am not using IE9, so maybe I am ringing alarm bells without any good reason. Still, for jQuery someone claims:

Once it notices that jQuery is linked from Google by many web-pages you use, it decides it's an ad and blocks it.

If true, then sstatic.net might be automatically blocked for the very same reason? Also, other "smart" devices, such as filtering proxies, self-learning firewalls or third-party services might add sstatic.net to the list of blocked domains?

To warn users about that, a check similar to the jQuery-check should be added to the HTML itself (or hosted from /content/js/ rather than sstatic.net) to test availability of SE's own scripts?

share|improve this answer

The current code is

<noscript>
<div id="noscript-warning">
Stack Overflow works best with JavaScript enabled
</div>
</noscript> 

So you're proposing we serve up a <div> like:

<noscript>
<div id="noscript-warning">
Stack Overflow works best with JavaScript enabled on this domain 
as well as sstatic.net and stackauth.com and ajax.googleapis.com
</div>
</noscript> 

That seems excessive, to serve up that millions of times per day, for this narrow, exceedingly rare 'experts only' situation where you've opted into whitelisting JavaScript with NoScript.

I think if you run NoScript, it's your job to view source for <script src=""> and figure this stuff out yourself.

share|improve this answer
    
And NoScript (and I imagine its kin) doesn't even require you to do that, you can choose to whitelist the domains that are in use on that page pretty easily without having to find out which ones they are –  Daniel DiPaolo Mar 31 '11 at 16:55
1  
What's wrong with <noscript> <div id="noscript-warning"> Stack Overflow works best with <a href="/javascript.html">JavaScript enabled</a> </div> </noscript> where javascript.html can explain in whatever wanted details. –  hlovdal Nov 1 '11 at 7:30

It is not StackOverflow (or any other site's) responsibility to tell you how to get things to work if you are using methods like NoScript which could potentially break something or cause something important not to load.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .