[oblique63]

I myself am a 'creator', but I would never think of no-script users as "leeches" or "bots". The web is not some gated community (nor should it ever turn into one), and everyone has the right to browse as they please. If they don't think the value added by my site's interactivity is worthwhile enough for them to enable their javascript, I'd much rather hear why, than present them with a snarky remark about the 'modern web'; that way I can at least try to improve the site's message so that future no-script users feel compelled to use the site as it's meant to be used.

I used to be a no-script user too for a time, and while I stopped using it because it became too inconvenient, I think it's everyone's prerogative to decide whether or not a site can track them or show them ads. It might be annoying for sites whose only means of monetization is ads, but again, the web is free and that's just the nature of the beast.

[coderdude]

I seem to find myself tip-toeing through a minefield of things I didn't say or mean to imply. I'm not sure where the gated community thing came from. They aren't even related concepts. (Though I wouldn't mind hearing why you consider them so closely related.) Everyone has the right to browse as they please, I agree with you on that point. I don't think noscript users should get upset when a site owner points out that their client is crippled if the site owner wasn't delicate with their feelings in the process. It's a hindrance and an annoyance (a conclusion that you even shared as a noscript user over time).

>>I think it's everyone's prerogative to decide whether or not a site can track them or show them ads

Or even work properly. (I felt that was important to include too since it's a big deal.)

[oblique63]

Gated communities are exclusive by definition, so whenever a site posts up a message saying essentially 'get with the times', I feel that basically treats no-script users as a community that's being excluded. It's largely a semantic/communication issue at this point, but there is a difference between helping someone out by pointing them in the right direction ("oh hey, it seems your javascript is off right now, but if you turn it on for us we can offer you these cool features..."), and saying they aren't welcome here ("why is your javascript off? every modern website uses it!"/"you're taking away from our ad revenue!").

Now I'm not a huge 'graceful degradation' advocate by any means, since a lot of sites (or 'apps' rather) would become totally useless without js, but all those no-script users decided to block javascript for a reason and they know very well what blocking javascript will entail, so I see no reason to be condescending towards them or give them anything more than a simple reminder/value-proposition so that they can turn js on for our sites.

We're probably on the same page, I just think the case against people who block javascript is overstated; these users are a minority, and they can evaluate it on their own whether your site's functionality is worth enabling javascript for.