Thanks, but this only allows to disable "input methods", not ULS completely. I hope there is more I can do?
Thank you for you replies so far. Sadly this wasn't the answer I had hoped for.
Anyway I discovered two Bugzilla bugs regarding the issue:
@Nemo: Can you elaborate on why ULS can't be completely disabled on a user basis in your opinion? You said something about API functions used by other extensions in bug 46306? Anyway the user front end with all it's options is probably independent from the core of the extension anyway, so I don't see a problem here, even if your statement is true.
I was directed here from Bugzilla:46306 by Erik Moeller. I dont have much technical knowledge and I dont know why a user cannot be given the option to diable ULS completely. If the users request that they should be given an option to swith ULS off completely, that must be provided unless there is some sound technical reasons which makes it impossible. Is there any such reason?
There was given no reason at all so far (at least none of which I would be aware of and I searched a lot, on Bugzilla as well as on Wiki pages).
I even wrote an e-mail to Siebrand who is the project manager responsible for ULS (and who closed the bug as "WONTFIX") and asked him for a statement on why this wasn't considered. However he didn't respond to my mail sent on Monday yet (neither directly nor by a comment in Bugzilla nor on a Wiki page)
This is highly disappointing in my opinion! There is notable request by the community for such a feature. The WMF declines to fix it however and (which is worst) doesn't even care do give a reason for it.
Any way I highly suggest somebody at WMF to elaborate on the issue, otherwise this discussion will go on forever with us not knowing anything and you being bugged by us because of this!
I see disabling ULS entirely as akin to disabling the preferences section. ULS simply surfaces options and features related to languages in a location of the user interface where they are likely to be sought. From what I've seen in the ml.wp and ta.wp discussions, the desire to disable seems to mostly stem from identifying ULS with overriding the default font. That is, however, not inherently something that ULS does -- the default font can be configured on a per-language level, and completely disabled (both by communities in Common.js and in the ULS config itself) if needed.
I gave several reasons in many places already, but I'll elaborate on it again in the hope that you will consider those issues.
First of all I think many users don't need ULS at all:
Besides those nobody was able to tell me if ULS offers any further features, that may not be directly visible. But if there are no such "hidden" features ULS is totally useless for me (and probably many others) and only clutters the UI.
Now to the problems this is actually producing besides being redundant or even useless:
On choosing the default font and consensus (bugzilla:46306#c43), I'm a bit concerned because it enables a paradox: if a font is supported very bad by normal systems, wikis will have users coming only from uncommon systems/setups, hence consensus will be skewed; the more a webfont is needed, the more likely it is to be disabled based on consensus...
Of course, as Churchill would say, it's the worst except that the alternatives available so far would be worse.
I fully agree with your concern. I do not agree with you that the Churchill invocation is applicable.
After more than a month there is still no satisfactory answer why an option to disable ULS is not considered at all.
I'm deeply disappointed by you guys! This is not how great software is designed. It's ragged, ignorant and unfinished. If you don't have the manpower to develop such extensions to the end then delay deployment or please offer an off-switch for those who are not dependent on the offered functionality!