I would like the creation of the privilege to answer and upvote, logged in, but without JavaScript.

Set it at as high as 1000 points, if you fear robots. You may even take, for example, 200 points to people activating that privilege. Vision impaired people, like me, would be happy even at such a price.

The objective is allow for more participation from security-aware people, and also from vision impaired (me) and blind people. The question What are the pros and cons of supporting anonymous participation on Stack Exchange? even asks for anonymous answering, so my request seems to be more reasonable.

Some people browse without JavaScript following recommendations1, others are forced to do so because of their device or because of one of their configuration settings not closely related[2].

1

[2]

  • 3
    Java and javascript are completely different things. You've confused them twice here. – EnergyNumbers Nov 25 '13 at 10:38
  • 1
    It is likely a very small percentage of people who access SO do so without JS, so I'm not sure if the overhead in allowing for this feature has enough of a benefit to do. For instance for UK site gov.uk only 1.1% of users didn't receive JS, and 0.2% of those users had intentionally disabled it (noScript on using browsers that don't use JScript)- suggesting intentional use of NoScript is very low (OK, SO users are likely different to gov.uk, but I don't know how different). – JonW Nov 25 '13 at 10:38
  • 1
    It's like saying 'only x percent if people is blind so it's not worth the effort'. OP quotes real practical issues no stats are going to help him with. – Stijn de Witt Mar 10 at 22:45

First of all, changing the site so it can be used without JavaScript is no small feat. It would take a long time. For what benefit?

Second - privileges are there as things you can do on the site that you couldn't before - just enabling no-JavaScript browsing is not in-line with that. It doesn't give you something you any additional action on the site that you couldn't do before.

  • Now, I can provide my password, but then it results in 404 on openid.stackexchange.com/account/login/submit so I understand that. – user2987828 Nov 25 '13 at 10:39
  • 3
    There are many of us that do not have JavaScript enabled and browse the web. Most of us who do have it disabled turn it off due to security concerns and this is often something that is mandated as policy at our workplace so not much choice there on our part. Others disable it for speed, no ads, etc.. I often browse using a text only browser like links, w3m, or elinks so no love there either. Making the site work without JS would bring benefits to those in the same boat. – unclejamil Mar 20 '17 at 0:18
  • @unclejamil - unfortunately, that's not something we will be doing. From the very start of the site, JavaScript has been required, and its usage has only increased since. It will take years for us to make it fully work without JS. – Oded Mar 20 '17 at 9:23
  • 1
    @Oded thanks for caring enough to answer. I am vision impaired, but I am fortunate enough to be able to use firefox. What about blind people ? This is about accessibility. – user2987828 Mar 7 at 15:43
  • @user2987828 - I am no longer working for Stack Exchange, so not something I can respond to anymore. – Oded Mar 7 at 15:55
  • 1
    I guess OP requests that it would be a privilege because he thinks that preventing spam is one of the reasons JS is required. – Stijn de Witt Mar 10 at 22:48
  • @StijndeWitt Since less than two months, it is possible to edit posts without any javascript, in lynx browser. Posting an answer required me to re-open [the SE page](httNOGREPps://stackoverflow.com/nocaptcha?s=ed73fab1-bd72-dfb4-a683-2e0881779772) that contains Google's ReCaptcha iframe in a incognito firefox window where I was logged in the SE site. – user2987828 Apr 30 at 14:06
  • This time I did not have to solve any captcha, just to reopen the said link in firefox. – user2987828 Apr 30 at 14:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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