Move the "disable JS" button where it fits better

[BlakeyRat]

You are entitled to your opinion, but please don't state it as fact.

If you need fine control over which JavaScript functions you want enabled that influence your interaction with web pages, then please download Pale Moon Commander (as already suggested in the other thread you started).

Thank you for your suggestion. I will look into Pale Moon Commander. I appreciate your help.

However, I don't understand your comment: "You are entitled to your opinion, but please don't state it as fact."

Some websites use Javascript to do annoying or deceptive things. That is a fact.

if I disable Javascript and it causes a website to not work properly, that is my problem, not yours. That is a fact.

Firefox used to have an option -- a checkbox in the Options --> Content dialog box where you could enable or disable Javascipt. That is a fact.

This feature existed for many years and goes all the way back to the original "Mozilla Suite" that existed before Firefox. That is a fact.

Removing that feature didn't save any space -- that dialog box is still the same size and now has lots of empty space in it. That is a fact.

[opera1215b1748]

Javascipt should be enabled on all pages by default and then you disable it on those few pages that use Javascript to do annoying or deceptive things.

I - on the contrary - have it the other way: everything is disabled everywhere, I white-list sites I trust.
This is MUCH safer (I agree, it is less convinient).

[Moonchild]

However, I don't understand your comment: "You are entitled to your opinion, but please don't state it as fact."

I was referring to your statement "That is simply not true" repeated again in your other reply, on things that are not as clear-cut.

e.g.

Many websites work just fine without Javascipt, and the parts that don't work are things that you probably don't care about anyway.

Assuming others don't care about something is presumptuous, not a fact.
You are also incorrect in assuming many websites work just fine without JavaScript. JavaScript is very much an integral part of modern web design, just like CSS is. So, maybe for the sites you visit, it may be true that they still somewhat function and you can still navigate them, but it most certainly is not something that you can simply apply to all websites out there.

Part of an intuitive interface is that you don't put controls in areas unless they specifically relate to those areas.

That is a fact. But you say "it's simply not true" - that's making it into an argument where there is none.

I'm just asking you to tone it down a little.

[opera1215b1748]

...maybe for the sites you visit, it may be true that they still somewhat function and you can still navigate them, but it most certainly is not something that you can simply apply to all websites out there...

I've seen weirder sites than just demanding JS - they refused to work without Flash and/or JAVA - for no apparent need.

But 99% of sites I visit regularly - none require JS.

[Moonchild]

99% of the sites visited don't -require- you to load images either.

[opera1215b1748]

Yes, that's why in myotherbrowser I set default to "Show cached" which blocks graphics for the first visit (saving me a lot of traffic) and gives me a quick option to finally load pics if I decide so. The button to toggle through the "Load always/Show cached/Show none" is user-configurable and may be placed next to the address field.

Sorry for the off-topic!