[LINK] RFC: Web 2.0

[Craig Sanders]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 01:19:58PM +1100, Kim Holburn wrote:
> I'm sorry I don't agree in general.  There are a number of useful  
> sites with useful uses of javascript.  For instance Gcal.  There are  
> times when it's very useful to share a calendar with a number of  
> people without setting up your own + an authentication system etc. etc.

fine, if people want to use them that's OK by me. none of my business what
other people want to use.

what's not OK by me is hiding the fact that such sites have privacy
implications, and that data the user doesn't even think about has value
to others, and that providing it freely to web sites may (and probably
will) result in them being profiled by marketing organisations and
getting more junk mail, phone spam, and email spam.

targetted spam doesn't mean you get LESS advertising junk, it means you
get targetted crap in addition to the scatter-shot junk.


> When the information is not particularly private anyway gcal still  
> gives you a range of sharing options.

most people have no idea about privacy, or what can be (and is) done with
their data.  they think nothing of giving out their contact details and other
personal information about themselves.  worse, they think nothing of giving
out their friends' contact information when encouraged to do so (e.g. with
"invite your friend" or "email this page to a friend" links on web sites).

i.e. i have much more of a problem with user-ignorance about privacy issues
than i do with the existence of particular sites.

> Other sites that have interesting uses of JS are sites like flickr.   

flickr works well enough for me with JS disabled.  not that i visit the site
very often, but i can search for and view photos without JS enabled.

ditto for video sites like google video.

which explains why there are firefox extensions like VideoDownloader to
bypass all the annoying javascript rubbish and just let you download the
video. then i can view it at my leisure after it has been downloaded
without having to suffer from jerky delays while streaming (even on an
otherwise idle adsl connection).


> I don't think you can make an argument like their terms and  
> conditions and privacy policy has a bearing on their use of JS.

i never said that it did.

however, a site that has privacy-infringing policies IS more likely to
have privacy-infringing javascript.  that, of course, is a function of the
developer's attitude rather than javascript itself.

> I don't find JS makes sites slow in fact quite the opposite.  

read what i wrote again. it's not the SITE that is slow, it is the
fact that JS makes firefox slow that is the problem. this is an
easily observable and repeatable phenomenon: disable javascript (e.g.
using NoScript). browse various sites. the browser will be fast and
responsive, e.g. when switching tabs/windows. now go to any site that
makes heavy use of javascript and enable JS. watch the browser instantly
slow to a crawl.

if you have JS enabled by default, you may not have noticed this - but
it makes a huge difference to the usability of the browser (and to the
entire system - excess CPU usage affects everything else running on the
machine).


> As for privacy and terms, those are separate issues.

not exactly.  javascript does have privacy implications.


craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)