[terabytest]

I'd rather say it's a lack of resources and interest in addressing a minority and jumping through hoops to make functionality that wouldn't work without JavaScript work without it. I'm not saying it shouldn't work when JavaScript is disabled, but some sites have functionality that cannot be easily (or quickly) reproduced without JS. They don't do it because they hate you or because they hate proper user experience.

[ronaldx]

The problem is not the minority you are thinking of: most of that minority can enable JavaScript if it's genuinely required.

The problem is people on poor or mobile connections - the majority - who have to suffer that little bit longer to wait for the blocking JavaScript to load and then burn down their limited battery for the sake of parallax scrolling or a marginally prettier icon or button on the static text site they are trying to read.

JavaScript-requiring designers do hate proper user experience.

[clarry]

> some sites have functionality that cannot be easily (or quickly) reproduced without JS

Having such extra functionality doesn't mean I should need JS at all to view the text content of an article.