Thank you for the elaborate response Dmitry!

> What most of them still do (despite the great progress in LibreJS I noticed 
> from a user point of view) is not relying on some automatic analysers, but 
> simply stick with ‘do not run’ as a default policy, possibly making some 
> unavoidable exceptions manually.

I understand, that a lot of people will just disable javascript, seeing as 
libreJS can sometimes lead to firefox not responding at all, if a website loads 
too much stuff (trisquel.info is a good example). The thing is, I want to blog 
about free software, the importance of free licenses and in general record my 
user experience trying out different solutions (like using Diaspora as a 
replacement fro Facebook, or running free software only for all daily tasks, or 
video/voice chat with people on Windows, something along these lines). It would 
be self-contradictory to use javascript that is not free software.

> So if the website management system, which you’d set your choose on, will not 
> fall back to a pure data interface in a sense of falling to nowhere instead 
> \[https://kolab.org\], I am afraid that it will be perceived as unusable, 
> with no regards to whether programs it relies on are free or not. Many will 
> just remain unaware of that fact.

I can only second that. A website should be able to fall back to a usable 
interface, if the client chooses to not run javascript. This is what I was also 
focusing on. Apparently there is an almost perfect solution out there. There 
are CMS systems that do not rely on javascript being run at the client. Like 
jekyll for example. It looks amazing right now, almost done implementing all 
the features I'd like to have for the beginning. However, I can still implement 
some javascript to enhance the experience, just little fun animations here and 
there, nothing that is necessary for using and reading the website. There will 
be a notification on the site somewhere, that it supports libreJS and all the 
script is free, so the user can enable it, if so desired.

> Falling to a screen that honestly explains that ‘management system’ 
> developers were not able to make a simple website, that does not even allow 
> you to post anything, without relying on auxiliary program on client 
> \[https://code.gov\]; or, all the more, thrusting a visitor to a nag page, 
> that advertises to install a nonfree browser, not even bothering to preserve 
> an original location \[https://vk.com\] — such things hardly help either.

That's not what I would consider a good practice either.

> So, if providing a standard way, that does not depends on any ad-hoc 
> programs, to interact with all features your website, is indeed unfeasible, 
> then, please, consider providing it to some extent, at the very least for 
> reading the pages.

The good news is, it is absolutely feasible. I can have all the convenience of 
a CMS (using pre-made themes that are easy to customize, not editing textfiles 
over ssh on the server in order to post an update, but rather using a web 
interface) and at the same time the whole website appears to be (on the client 
side) only static .html files. Jekyll is a tool for generating static webpages 
from a bunch of text files that use different markup languages. Jekyll supports 
different plugins, themes and filters, which in effect allows for static 
sidebars with navigation elements, multi-lingual websites, all the basic 
positive things about a CMS without relying on javascript at all.

So, in such an environment, javascript can be used to enhance the experience, 
add some animation to the menus for example, just fun little things that are 
not really necessary for the basic interaction with the website.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Am 5. März 2018 10:51 PM schrieb Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com>:

> > I want to host my personal website. Right now, looking for the right
> > 
> > CMS (I would like to use a CMS and not code the website manually).
> > 
> > Are you aware of any CMS that works with libreJS?
> > 
> > By that I mean, the javascript gets evaluated as free software, not
> > 
> > falling back to a compatibility mode without javascript.
> 
> > What I plan to do in regards to javascript:
> > 
> > I'm going to either eliminate or limit the amount of non-free javascript 
> > served.
> > 
> > If I see a script that has obviously been licensed correctly, but just
> > 
> > not getting recognized by libreJS, I will refer to the how-tos on
> > 
> > gnu.org to make libreJS aware of the actual license.
> > 
> > Is there anything else I can do to make life easier for libreJS users?
> 
> In spite of list topic and your explicit question, that was concerning 
> LibreJS users, I, being quite upset by your seek for something that would be 
> ‘not falling back’, have to note that, under my strongest impression, the 
> amount of LibreJS users in comparison to overall number of users, who cares 
> about their freedom, is relatively small.
> 
> What most of them still do (despite the great progress in LibreJS I noticed 
> from a user point of view) is not relying on some automatic analysers, but 
> simply stick with ‘do not run’ as a default policy, possibly making some 
> unavoidable exceptions manually.
> 
> (All of the above would be especially true if we referred to a ‘\[software\] 
> freedom’ not necessary in a full extent of that word, but possibly as low as 
> to freedom for users to decide which software to run on their computers. That 
> is, to the thing that was universal only about fifteen years ago but is 
> always totally smashed nowadays.)
> 
> So if the website management system, which you’d set your choose on, will not 
> fall back to a pure data interface in a sense of falling to nowhere instead 
> \[https://kolab.org\], I am afraid that it will be perceived as unusable, 
> with no regards to whether programs it relies on are free or not. Many will 
> just remain unaware of that fact.
> 
> Falling to a screen that honestly explains that ‘management system’ 
> developers were not able to make a simple website, that does not even allow 
> you to post anything, without relying on auxiliary program on client 
> \[https://code.gov\]; or, all the more, thrusting a visitor to a nag page, 
> that advertises to install a nonfree browser, not even bothering to preserve 
> an original location \[https://vk.com\] — such things hardly help either.
> 
> So, if providing a standard way, that does not depends on any ad-hoc 
> programs, to interact with all features your website, is indeed unfeasible, 
> then, please, consider providing it to some extent, at the very least for 
> reading the pages.
> 
> If so, a human-readable notice that notifies of that might be also apt in 
> addition to machine-readable labels for LibreJS. Please, do not let it 
> obscure part of a page from being read \[https://minifree.org/\], though.



Reply via email to