[throwaway_pdp09]

> because they can make good risk/reward assessments

Indeed, and I made mine. No ads, not tracking, no risk of malware, no need for virus scanner, high speed page loading (ahem, when it works). Worth it? For me, sure! Peace of mind means a lot to me.

What's so hard about making web pages that don't use unnecessary tech?

[errantspark]

There's nothing wrong with it, I AGREE with you that we shouldn't ship 5 megs of some garbage framework with every blog post. The point I'm responding to is that it's somehow reasonable or common for "professionals" to run with JS off, and to not do so is "playing around". It's not. It's a very niche thing that very few people get an actual benefit from.

[throwaway_pdp09]

Nonono, that's not what I said (well, not what I intendeded, I suppose it was ambiguous). "kids playing around, not professionals working" was referring to web designers indulging in their 'web experience' crap at a cost to the users, NOT to those who might run with JS off.

[eadmund]

I am a professional, and I primarily browse with it off by default and whitelisted for only a few sites. I do have a JavaScript-enabled browser for user-hostile websites which require it, but I rarely need to use it (and I have real animus against those which force me into doing so).