Kerm,

I'd just like to say kudos for running this forum without Javascript. I loathe JS with a loathing that engulfs me like a tidal wave, partly because so many webmasters require it for stupid stuff like downloads that would work just as well without it -- better, even.

But something interactive like a forum is a different matter, so my hat's off to you. Well done!

The only JS element that I'm familiar with is the SAX widget at the left. If you want a purely JS free experience I have made a mobile version of the site, which you can access by clicking "Switch to Mobile View" below.

Stan, I appreciate it. As comicIDIOT says, Javascript is only required for SAX (the chat widget at left) in the general site, and for using jsTIfied in SourceCoder. I was considering AJAXing the rest of SourceCoder to make it a more cohesive webapp, but your comment got me thinking that having it be non-AJAX is not the end of the world, so thanks.

What's wrong with using JS? Avoiding unnecessary complexity (and using native elements) in an interface is the role of developer/designer, not the language itself. Without JS, many of the sites you frequent would feel impossibly slow.

Slow in that you might need to reload pages to progress through certain tools, but I might even argue that he's right. Certainly a page without Javascript elements cannot be slower to load/render/"run" (ie, exist in front of you, scroll, etc) than a page with Javascript. I would further argue that what Javascript gives you is a smoother user experience and more frills, but not necessarily more functionality.

For instance, with client-side MVC, one can pre-fetch models, lazily sync models to the server, exploit client-side templating, and use a host of other techniques to greatly 1) reduce the literal amount of data that is being sent back and forth, and 2) reduce the response time between a user's action and visible feedback. If you're so inclined, you could even cache your static elements (particularly templates) with a simple manifest so that frequent visitors to a site are only requesting data, not the rendered page itself.

Not a huge fan of JS here, although I don't mind if it actually speeds up posting a bit. Don't abuse AJAX, though, because it limits the website doing so to faster computers.

Unless you kept both the topic view and the post editor on the same page, perhaps in divs that could be switched around, AJAX wouldn't really help with creating posts, imho. Of course, with editing it can be helpful, as several existing forum software packages (including the one Omnimaga uses) demonstrate. For something like SourceCoder, we're you're repeatedly saving/checking a bit of content only to return to the exact same editor, I would think it would make quite a bit of sense.

My issue with Javascript, quite simply, is the security problems. Sure, a given site's programmers may be responsible and not abuse it, but then one day I visit the same site I've visited before, only this time it's been maliciously hacked and something bad has now inserted itself on my computer.

I am probably out in the tail of the distribution on this, but unless I absolutely have to use a site that requires Javascript, I won't. And that's a mighty short list, chiefly my bank and the Outlook server where I teach.

Blocking javascript hardly makes you more secure - who knows, maybe there's an exploit in a data uri link someone sends your way, or an ugly cross-origin request that does unfortunate things on accounts you're logged into. As long as you use a modern browser and avoid scammy sites, you'll generally be fine.

As a whole, I feel that users who go without js are breaking the web - in many cases, there's no good way to gracefully degrade, short of showing a big ugly message asking you to turn js back on.

I do get annoyed with sites that use JS when it's not really necessary, especially for simple links (since it breaks browser functionality like being able to open in new tabs/windows; and there's not really a good one-size-fits-all solution for the browser to work around this due to all the crazy, fancy stuff JS can potentially do). Also, while things like AJAX and on-demand loading can be used well, in a way it can be annoying because I'm so used to traditional strategies like hitting Back to return to the last view, and these often mess me up there—so I kind of have mixed feelings about it.

Other than that I don't mind JS if it's being used properly (i.e., in a non-abusive/annoying way that actually improves the user experience). But since many sites do abuse it, I run NoScript. I would appreciate it if more sites would actually remind me to enable JavaScript since I often forget and think the sites are broken (too many just as-u-me that every browser in the world has JS enabled, let alone actually supports it, and then silently break without explanation).

Though, since I find myself allowing JS for at least the top-level domain of new sites I visit nine times out of ten anyway, I've recently decided to try a compromise and allow top-level by default in NoScript, which makes things a lot less of a hassle for me. But after what I've been through the last ten years or so, I'm not quite going to just allow JS globally for unknown/untrusted sites without manually approving it first.

IMHO, Javascript must not be essential for the site's main functions. For example, if I browse Omnimaga with JS disabled (such as on my Playstation 3), I can still post, edit messages, login/out, check my PMs, edit my profile and so on. Same with Cemetech's forums. Only the respective shoutboxes will fail, and you can visit both channels via IRC.

I don't like if I am in need to disable JS due to slow computer or device, then I can't use some websites.