[tor-talk] Updated "Why JavaScript is enabled" FAQ entry

[krishna e bera]

On 13-08-13 06:59 AM, mick wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 06:10:34 +0200
> Jon Tullett <jon.tullett at gmail.com> allegedly wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 12, 2013 6:16 PM, "Roger Dingledine" <arma at mit.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I rewrote our two FAQ entries on JavaScript-in-TBB, and merged them
>>> into one:
>>>
>>> https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#TBBJavaScriptEnabled
>>>
>>
>> Personally I'd still like to see a message front and centre on the
>> browser homepage too...longtime users (and probably lots of new ones)
>> likely skip the faq entirely. Licence agreements and instructions are
>> for wimps, right? :-)
> 
> Of course, "real men don't read manuals" :-)
> 
> On the content, I think the second sentence in the new FAQ could be
> usefully amended as follows:
> 
> "Most users would give up on Tor entirely if a website they want to use
> requires JavaScript [and thus fails to render pages correctly because of
> the default TBB settings], because they would not know how to allow a
> website to use JavaScript (or that enabling JavaScript might make a
> website work). 
> 
> (Additions in [] )

I find it hard to believe that people who have already made a choice to
use TBB wouldnt notice NoScript popping up in the browser window and
making a noise whenever it blocks a script on a website, or that they
would be unwilling or unable to learn the 2 clicks to enable javascript
for that site.  Was there a usability study done or is "most users"
expected behaviour a guess?  If the latter, i suggest dropping that
reason from the FAQ or changing it to "some users".

Preventing browser fingerprinting seems sufficient reason.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 545 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20130813/d1bbd9d5/attachment.sig>