• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

"JavaScript is disabled."

C

commodorejohn

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
3,415
Location
California, USA
Any chance of nuking this banner that's suddenly appeared? I know JS is disabled, thankyouverymuch; that's what I have a JS whitelist plugin installed for!
 
I (broswell@syssrc.com) just applied all the updates to Xenforo (software that runs the forum) this AM. I turned off javascript on my browser, and I see the message I think you are writing about.
"JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding." Is this what you are talking about?

Not sure what I can do besides revert to older version. Will keep in touch.
 
style="display: none" ?

Seriously, all you can think of is "revert to older version" for a banner not to show?!
 
Perhaps my testing was bad (I started with JS enabled) When I disabled it, in addition to the banner appearing, the "Post reply" button did work as expected. As soon as I re-enabled js, everything worked as I expected.

Timo - I try not to customize the (commercial) software in any way. It makes upgrades much harder!

Merry Christmas

Bob
 
Folks,

We'll look in to this issue. If we can, we'll make changes, but such is the nature of software upgrades, as we have seen here, before.

Please bear with us, as we see what can be done.

- Alex
 
commodorejohn said:
Any chance of nuking this banner that's suddenly appeared? I know JS is disabled, thankyouverymuch; that's what I have a JS whitelist plugin installed for!
Click to expand...
So why don't you want to enable JS for this site? Or is the issue that you do have JS enabled for this site (because it's in your allow list), but the site still thinks its disabled?

If you're absolutely sure you have it enabled and you're still seeing the message, it may be worth investigating just what's gone wrong. Typically the message is in the HTML, as it is on this page:

Code: 
<noscript class="js-jsWarning">
    <div class="blockMessage blockMessage--important blockMessage--iconic u-noJsOnly">
        JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in
        your browser before proceeding.
    </div>
</noscript>

and the message is disabled by JavaScript or, in this case, the browser itself decides if it has JavaScript enabled and displays that only if it doesn't (because <noscript> tag). So if you're seeing it, typically that means something really is blocking JavaScript from running.
 
No, I have it disabled because I don't need it. 95% of the forum functionality works fine without it (oh, for the days when forum software was 100% functional without scripts!) and I don't run scripts on sites that don't absolutely require them.
 
Oh, well, fair enough. But it's arguably a bug in the forum software that's been fixed that it now (correctly) informs you when you've not got JS enabled. Is the message terribly large and annoying, or something? I guess it's highlighted in some way, from the classes on that division, but I'm not sure how prominent it is otherwise.

At any rate, you can use one of the many tools that lets you locally override the page stylesheets in order to get rid of it. Just suppress display for that noscript block with class "js-jsWarning."

commodorejohn said:
95% of the forum functionality works fine without it (oh, for the days when forum software was 100% functional without scripts!)
Click to expand...
Well, some functionality can be done only with JS, and some of us find that functionality useful. So I do hope you're saying that there are things you want that can be done just as well without JS that you wish they had done without JS, rather than features that other people use should be removed because you personally don't feel the need for them and are annoyed that they exist.
 
cjs said:
Is the message terribly large and annoying, or something?
Click to expand...
I just checked this out, and in my humble opinion it's not. It's at the head of threads, but not part of the fixed header so its scrolls off the top as you scroll down. For typical usage, where you're jumping directly to new messages in a thread, you won't even see it.

vcf-forum-js-disabled.jpg
 
I don't get a javascript error (because I haven't disabled it), but the VCFED logo is teeny now, barely visible. You can see what it looks like on the screenshot in the above post.

Any chance of making it big again?
 
cjs said:
I just checked this out, and in my humble opinion it's not.
Click to expand...
Humble or otherwise, that's your opinion and not mine. It's not a huge usability impediment, but it's irksome on principle.

Robbbert said:
I don't get a javascript error (because I haven't disabled it), but the VCFED logo is teeny now, barely visible. You can see what it looks like on the screenshot in the above post.
Click to expand...
Also seeing this. I was assuming it was due to having JS disabled, but evidently it's just a failure of whatever dynamic-layout functionality the update might've added; the image is being loaded at full resolution, but getting scaled down to 100x10 for some reason.
 
I figured that out, at least. For some reason, the upgrade caused the logo to resize to 100 pixels wide, and with the size of the logo file (572x58px) that translates to the tiny logo that we got.

Should be fixed, now, I believe.

- Alex
 
commodorejohn said:
It's not a huge usability impediment, but it's irksome on principle.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a usability impediment at all, though I understand how you find it irksome. (Perhaps even irksome enough to suppress it in the way I suggested above, perhaps not.)

But I certainly approve of this move, because I've seen this issue from the other side. I run with cookies and other client-side storage disabled for all sites except those I explicitly enable it for, and it's far more irritating that most sites silently fail, sometimes in mysterious ways, with client-side storage disabled rather than just saying that they need it turned on, much less falling back gracefully to lesser functionality. I can only applaud developers who take the time and effort to explain why things are not working rather than just assuming end users have a particular common configuration of their browser.
 
ajacocks said:
I figured that out, at least. For some reason, the upgrade caused the logo to resize to 100 pixels wide, and with the size of the logo file (572x58px) that translates to the tiny logo that we got.

Should be fixed, now, I believe.

- Alex
Click to expand...
Yes, fixed now. Thank you and Happy Christmas.
 
cjs said:
I can only applaud developers who take the time and effort to explain why things are not working rather than just assuming end users have a particular common configuration of their browser.
Click to expand...
That's lovely; I disagree entirely. I do not need web designers presuming to tell me how I should have my browser configured. I have JS whitelisted because I mean to have JS whitelisted. (And frankly, the suggestion that this might ever be an "oops, didn't mean to do that...!" scenario when no mainstream browser comes configured by default to disable scripting is absurd.)
 
commodorejohn said:
That's lovely; I disagree entirely. I do not need web designers presuming to tell me how I should have my browser configured. I have JS whitelisted because I mean to have JS whitelisted. (And frankly, the suggestion that this might ever be an "oops, didn't mean to do that...!" scenario when no mainstream browser comes configured by default to disable scripting is absurd.)
Click to expand...
They are not suggesting that you have misconfigured your browser. They are simply informing you that they have features that depend on JavaScript to which you're won't have access. This is quite the opposite of, "we'll just let the site quietly break if you don't turn on what we want you to turn on."

The developers are clearly in "helpful" mode rather than "do it our way" mode because they've put in a fair amount of effort to make the site work (though not as nicely) without JavaScript. I think it's rather nasty of you to hate on them for this. But it's the Internet, so I guess haters gotta hate.

The absurd thing is that you know how to turn off that message, but you can't be bothered to put in a tiny bit of effort to do so, instead complaining that someone else won't hid this in order to make you feel better even though other users, such as me, would prefer to know about this.
 
cjs said:
The absurd thing is that you know how to turn off that message, but you can't be bothered to put in a tiny bit of effort to do so, instead complaining that someone else won't hid this in order to make you feel better
Click to expand...
You and I are both free to speculate about the developers' attitudes, and we may disagree - but kindly do not presume to tell me what my motivation is here.
 
commodorejohn said:
...but kindly do not presume to tell me what my motivation is here.
Click to expand...
Ok, let's just say it comes across that way, then, even if by "I do not need web designers presuming to tell me..." you really meant, "I'm sure the web developers are doing there best to make things work as well as possible for everyone, overall, and I understand and accept that perhaps what I want is not what most of the world wants."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top