This isn’t mine, but the number of my users with js turned off isn’t worth the effort. You guys make a lot of noise, but not a lot of traffic.

Your analytics are probably blocked by anyone who has JS off so your traffic numbers are skewed.

They aren’t.

How would you know?

I own the hardware.

This is not only about people who disable js, but also about people with disabilities who would benefit from accessibility features on your app. With this arguement, we should also ignore them, since they might not be the ones making the most traffic i.e. revenue for us. There is also the increasing number of users who disable trackes out of privacy concerns. At lease most of the marketing guys I've seen still assume what trackers show is all there is.

Accessibility isn’t being discussed here. All my sites are accessible, don’t conflate the two.

This sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Who's going to generate a lot of traffic interacting with a blank page?

This. Without JS the base expectation should be a blank page. Not even an error message.

That's a bizarrely vindictive attitude.

I’m not saying it should be that way on purpose, I’m saying that’s what you can expect. No one tests for people using terminal browsers or IE4. Noscript users are in the same niche. I understand why you’d disable JavaScript but I don’t understand how people expect those who make web apps to cater for that.

"Expect" is a word that has different meanings depending on the context: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/expect

> To predict or believe that something will happen

In this sense, I do not expect most websites to work without javascript.

> To consider obligatory or required.

In this sense, I do expect most websites to work without javascript. At the very least, for accessibility reasons.

You can expect all you want, I expect you’ll be disappointed. The goal to keep the web in that languid state is of the same ilk of the buggy whip. It’ll have archaic use cases, but the numbers won’t make sense for a lot of if not most future endeavours.

Opine all you like, it won't stop us from raising a stink about inaccessible websites.

Inaccessible sites as in doesn’t work with screen readers and similar? You can make websites using js and still conform to accessibility standards (wcag etc). Just like you can make inaccessible websites without js.

Good advice, I'll change that so it explains that I don't use any form of tracking. It's a shame most SPA sites abuse JS to the point that users feel the need to disable it by default.

I mean, this is a good example of a web site that I'm likely to be interested in seeing, but unlikely to need to use the functionality of. It's a great idea for web sites like this to make it look generally the same (if at all possible, or have an explanation of what it would look like), but not work (with a brief message about why) when Javascript is turned off.

I think that's possibly more important than claiming that you won't do any tracking. You sound like a trustworthy person, I'm sure, but of course the less reputable web sites could well claim they don't do any tracking, but then do tracking.

The first paragraph is a way to say "This is what you get when you switch Javascript on", and the second is "This is what you don't get when you switch Javascript on". Different messages. The first is verifiable useful information. The second is harder to verify.

And yes, I agree it is tragic that the world has reached this point.

mnw21cam: you're not representative of most users.

In fact, I've never seen a "Javascript apology" on any website.

No, you luddite, no one uses the internet anymore without Javascript.

But plenty of people use NoScript[1,2] and similar configurable blockers

When you open a new website, only the previously whitelisted JS sources are enabled, and you can individually check out the initially disabled sites to see if you want to trust it to run on your machine.

So, yes, having some default information about the code required to view the basic site would definitely be helpful, and help build trust.

[1] https://github.com/hackademix/noscript [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript#ClearClick_(anti-clic...