OMG. For this 'better experience' and 'reimagining what the web can become' did you bother to ask the users you pretend to cater for? No?
Listen carefully: the only experience I want from any website is to get to it, get the info I want, then I fuck off sharpish. I do not want 'experience' or any bloody 'reimagining' thank you. I have work to do.
- battery - monthly bandwidth cap - RAM - attention (pop ups, things that blink, things that scroll) - patience for privacy breaches
Pure text is the "better experience" most people want.
While it may be common, this seems a somewhat problematic framing of things. You're first responsibility ought to be to an analysis of the problem space, determining the appropriate tool to use based on the needs of the project. If you've already chosen the solution before you've even considered the problem, then of course you would have trouble conceiving of the options outside that narrow set.
That's why we users need replacement/plugin alternative JavaScript engines that will allow users to tweak settings and to send feedback/info back to the website that the user thinks that the site should receive. You or the site can then remain blissfully unaware that what you are receiving from the user's machine is cleverly-framed (disguised) garbage.
Sooner or later we'll have a plethora of such engines and then the tide will have turned.
I do not fucking want an "experience", I want hypertext with some images.
I also work in the healthcare space with heavy HIPAA security requirements. Like any language/framework/platform there are best practices to follow for solid security and performance, and a good secops team should set meaningful requirements.
In short, I will show a "This site requires Javascript enabled" message 100% of the time if my site requires Javascript.