-15

Today I was making a question, and I prefer to have JavaScript disabled most of the time. But besides the scaring red eye saying to me that "I can't tell you're a human", I could see nothing in this page.

Luckily, I was using a good browser at home and so I did not lose my question's text (that probably would have been erased by some nasty javascript if I were using anyone else's browser, somewhere else).

Stop using Google's new recaptcha. It is too much incompatible with many browsers, and it is just too annoying to answer it. You say you couldn't tell that I'm human? Let me point a few hints that my access logs for that session have:

  1. the pages I have seen, and the time between their requests are perfectly normal for any person to do

  2. I took a few minutes to write my question

  3. I was shown an useless warning about the tags I tried to use for my question, and after this (also, with a human common "time for thinking") I retried with a subset of it - a smart and good system/site could just point which of the tags I wanted had a problem, couldn't it?? But my guess was correct.

  4. After this step I was shown the empty page where a JS-enabled-only google na*** recaptcha should live

This is very disappointing.

"Works best with JS enabled?" or should it be "Works only with JS enabled?". I won't use if the second one is the objective.

Since some of you may live in a google-only world, it hides things for you. Did you know that you can still use the not annoying and JS-less-if-needed old version of reCAPTCHA today?

Better than that, there are easy things that can work like it, that many sites use: make one small word questions that humans will answer correctly but can't be easily guessed by bots. Look, textcaptcha.com is just one among the first few results in a not-bubble-locked-result-by-google search I did now.

And in the next page the same captcha problem should happen... I just took 5 or 10 minutes to write all of this. Yay, I'm not a human! :)

  • putting tags => "you cannot create tags, although this is just about one tags you chose"

  • putting no tag to avoid useless steps like above's continuation => "please enter at least one tag"

  • You could ask this is a polite manner, not so hostile. While it wouldn't improve chances of this actually being done, it could reduce downvotes you're going to get. (mine is the first) – Shadow Wizard Sep 10 '15 at 12:06
  • For the record, I've had the JS reCAPTCHA prompt appear when submitting a question, and my text was preserved. So you needn't fear "nasty JS" erasing your input. – Dan Bron Sep 10 '15 at 12:25
  • [quote]For the record, I've had the JS reCAPTCHA prompt appear when submitting a question, and my text was preserved. So you needn't fear "nasty JS" erasing your input.[/quote] Of course this would never happen. The website you're using it is big enough to test things before putting them live. But if you use browser's history you will lose form contents most time than you may imagine possible, and just for JS "smartnesses" that are not easy to couple with for browsers. – Balaco Sep 17 '15 at 14:01
  • This would've been declined in the first place, but there would have been a slightest chance of succeeding if you wrote this less like a rant and in a more professional way. – Margarine Sep 18 '15 at 21:44
4

JavaScript is required to view Stack Exchange. This will be .

  • Your comment does not say anything I did not knew. It just points something I'm questioning the restrictive needs, and also proposing paths of both thing exist together. If it's declined simply because it is declared to be this way, I just stay with the same disappointment I was in the other day. – Balaco Sep 17 '15 at 13:59
  • @Balaco Javascript is required to view the internet. – bjb568 Sep 18 '15 at 4:15
3

Your question sounds more of a rant than a question. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the new reCaptcha from Google. If it wasn't from Google, it was still good. And the SE javascript code doesn't delete your question, the javascript even saves it to your local storage!

99.99% of the websites rely on using Javascript, and I don't think we should make it a problem to use it. If you don't want to use it, then don't. You are not required to use any of the StackExchange sites, you can, if you want to. No one is going to force you to.

In my opinion: let your feelings against Google not hurt the way you use SE. Google makes some good stuff, and SE is free to use any as they seem useful.

  • Actually, the question is being stored to external cache, server side (not client side local storage). This will be available even if you browse from a totally different computer or device. More details here. :) – Shadow Wizard Sep 10 '15 at 14:18
1

Commenting the ideas said until here. Each in a separated paragraph, at least.

Javascript prevents any browser of doing the work in the way I choose to do. Javascript want to reinvent the wheel, by making things that are usually not a standard among many websites, so I prefer not to have in any (or in all, you get the idea). And so I opt to leave if off most of the time, and permanently for most websites. It gives me many usability improvements without the need of relying of bigger, heavier and big requirement things (like neededing just the last version of just some browsers, in a world full of different browser I may want to use).

Some websites may use JS in good ways. Without standard, without a behaviour that is predictable like the behaviour of the browser I use, at least until I update it or change my configurations. The fact that a few websites do not "use" all the bad things that I pointed or that can be made with JS does not make it a reason to turn it on for all websites. And websites change much more, and much more naturally, than the browsers I need and want to use.

Many websites rely on using JS, true. But many big sites like twitter, facebook, google (although their sites are not good enough, for strategic reasons, the recaptcha is an example, *chrome related "technologies" give sites many other not so good as possible-with-simpler examples; gmail is 100% JS less, if needed or wanted), Duckduckgo, Yandex, ... just to mention a few general websites. All of them have completely JS free and fully usable versions.

The newer captcha is useless without JS. The old one works with or without JS enabled. And gives the same guarantee of a human. The newer captcha could use the same technology, but it was chosen not to. The site textcaptcha.com gives a solution that could be perfectly, simply and easily used in all stack* websites.

Google makes some good stuff, indeed. But it also makes stuff that are good just for economic and strategic reasons, given its (natural) profit aims. Google Code ending, initially without giving any paths for a full project migration; XMPP support drop; Orkut ending with all its contents; there are a few examples that have made many people reconsider and rethink many aspects of some decisions that were thought to be safer or more guaranteed than they were. Microsoft makes many good stuff too. Windows Vista/7/8/10 introduced some drastic changes in user interface that were criticized and later turned back; but these changes also happened with similar characterists in Ubuntu's Gnome, Ubuntu's Unity and Gnome 3.

If the question is stored in an external cache by Javascript, why not making it cached for a JS-less form in the same page also? The next page can be: captcha, confirmation of needed details/changes like tags, corrections or anything else. And all users will be happy, always. :)

(and please excuse the fact that if this is not a comment, and it instead an answer, it is because the JS-less version has a form to submit the answer, but has no form to submit comments, as anyone could naturally expect to exist, since this one exists)

You must log in to answer this question.

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