[zeveb]

Except, as I indicate in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15515968, the images are extraordinarily low-res with JavaScript turned off.

'Well, turn it on!' is certainly one solution, but of course enabling JavaScript doesn't just let me view images (something HTTP & HTML do just fine anyway), but also enables execution of potential malware, tracking & other nastiness.

[selectodude]

There are upsides and downsides to enabling Javascript. If you want to enjoy the NYT rich web content, you need to have it on. Just the way it is.

[zeveb]

I hope that JPEGs don't count as 'rich web content'!

[godshatter]

Not the person you were replying to, but if they want to sabotage my experience because I don't wish to be tracked or infected with malware, then that's their business I guess. I hope they don't expect me to think delightful thoughts about them for doing it.

[SolaceQuantum]

Should they make two separate web pages, or rely only on less ornate tooling for a niche user base?

[godshatter]

They could just load the images and videos without the need for javascript. We know that they can do this, because they specifically made it show low-res versions for those without javascript. They went out of their way to handle this admittedly niche user base already, purposefully to make their experience worse.

[selectodude]

Most people who don't have Javascript are using very old, antiquated browsers. The NYT cares enough about its lower-income and foreign readers to make it fail gracefully. I think that sending low-res photos makes infinitely more sense.