[sershe]

If Gmail or Twitter can do it, so can you. And hey, plain-HTML Gmail is actually vastly faster (noticeable even on my gaming PC, and much more so on my banking laptop) and basically as functional as the "regular" one.

Javascript is unneeded for vast majority of use cases, or is needed as an optional extra (like client side form pre-validation). 99% of existing Javascript on most websites is garbage that actually detracts from user experience; and it tends to grow like cancer - where one could get away with some nice enchantments on an otherwise Javascript-required website, one tends to instead end up with a slow, bloated monstrosity with pointless animations, sliding, etc. that cannot be used in multiple tabs, doesn't have capacity to link to a section of itself, etc. (see Chase banking website, for example)

And that is why I personally think no-JS should simply be an ADA-based legal requirement, like handicapped spots. That would force the usage patterns to move in the right direction.

[mdoms]

> If Gmail or Twitter can do it, so can you.

I don't have the resources or user base of Gmail or Twitter. Not even close.

[sershe]

Making a HTML-only website backed by server-side code is generally easier than having two interacting application - one on server, one on client. My point was that even complex, popular apps can easily be implemented in HTML-only without loss of functionality.