[catalogia]

That's a bizarrely vindictive attitude.

[alkonaut]

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.

[catalogia]

"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.

[cassiet]

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.

[catalogia]

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

[alkonaut]

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.