[viraptor]

And every common description of web accessibility. From WAI to Wikipedia to common courses. I'm not saying it's good design or the right direction for GitHub. Just that accessibility is important and disabling-js is not really it.

Specifically: disabling JS - your choice; having a disability - not your choice.

[bluefox]

In my case, yes, it is by choice. But do you think everyone has a choice? JavaScript is a power-hungry, memory-hungry, bloated, security nightmare. Requiring JavaScript for basic functionality (that was available not that long ago!) is simply hostile.

[zaptheimpaler]

Yes most consumer devices run the same 3 browsers all of which run Javascript just fine. I get you don't like it, but that doesn't mean its an accessibility problem.

[httpsterio]

> Yes most consumer devices run the same 3 browsers all of which run Javascript just fine. I get you don't like it, but that doesn't mean its an accessibility problem.

Assuming you have a new enough device. My 300€ android from 2017 is essentially unusable as it can't run JS well enough any longer.

[hombre_fatal]

That doesn't make sense except for a few heavy applications of JS like a resource-intensive web game which is obviously a niche outside of general statements about the internet.

Your 2017 Android isn't unusable because it can't run AJAX and $(dropdown).toggle() fast enough. Maybe it's not as fast as your laptop.

[pferde]

The issue here is that nowadays "heavy applications of JS" are quite common on blogs, news websites and other "definitely not web applications"-type of websites.

With JS enabled, I sometimes see simple mousewheel scrolling slow down or become choppy, or spiking CPU usage for a second or two. Simple scrolling of content that is already rendered and is not moving. And often, the same site with JS disabled scrolls smoothly (or completely fails to load, it's a crapshoot, really).

[watwut]

I have even older android phone and js runs fine.