[danielskogly]

I get what you're saying, and for many use-cases fully static websites is all you need. What might have been a better title for my post is "(Coincidentally) accommodating [..]", as the main target audience still remains users _with_ JS. By following some guidelines, using a couple of helpers, and avoiding certain interactions for _required_ interactions - ie. you can have sparkles on mousemove all you want, but don't gate important app functionality behind it - you will _also_ support users without JS. If the implementation cost is low, the potential gain of you and other users who might enjoy a JS-less experience might well be worth it.

For my part, I'm developing a service targeting privacy-minded people, and the ~1.75m NoScript users/installs are then among my main target audience.