As such, when the only reason that a site requires JS to be readable is sloppy coding, yes, I call them out on it.
I enable JS only for things that require it for a good reason, and where I am reasonably sure that they won't be exploited. Doing a fancy fade-in on load (which, by the way, can easily be done accessibly) is not a good reason, and I am not reasonably sure that some random blog won't be exploited.
The text is in plain format in the source file. What does the JS add besides actually showing the text. Nothing.
In 1999 the Web had aligned text, fonts, and hyperlinks. In 2015 we need JS to do this!?
As I said: it's a trivial fix.
> The web uses javascript. Get used to it.
There's absolutely no reason to require the execution of potentially malicious code in order to read an article. Yes, web apps require JavaScript (and I don't use very many of them, for precisely that reason), but a web page, that is a resource fetched via HTTP (the hypertext transfer protocol) and encoded in HTML (hypertext markup language), simply doesn't and shouldn't.
The Internet is about communication; it's about the exchange of information.
Yes.
Yes, I expect to be able to read data without having to execute code.
And, FWIW, the Internet was pretty great in 1999. In many ways (but not all, of course) it was better than what we're stuck with now.
That gives you 16 years to learn how to make a simple, efficient, portable web page.
It's sad that Chromium doesn't have a way to disable CSS on a per-domain basis (and browser extensions are potential backdoors so I'm not going to install them).
...
It's 2015, not 1999. If you don't have javascript enabled, do you honestly expect to be able to read half of the internet?