[asdasf]

>As JavaScript is basically a required feature on the web these days, who cares?

People who don't live in a fantasy bubble world where that is true? "Hey, just throw away 1% of your potential user base for no reason" isn't a very compelling sales pitch.

[jdlshore]

I'd be very, very surprised if the number of people with JavaScript disabled is as high as 1%.

The number of people who have JavaScript disabled and don't know how and when to re-enable it is so small as to be irrelevant.

[JohnTHaller]

It's generally less than 0.5% and the few techies that do it via NoScript are well aware of what to do when things break. And you'll spend far more than 0.5% of your time and budget working to make a JS-less fallback version of all your work.

It's like supporting IE6 at this point. It's a tradeoff. And for the vast majority of us, it's a near-complete waste of resources to cater to them.

[ultimatedelman]

Depends... if it takes 20% of your time to make your site work for 1% of your potential users who have a feature disabled, I say forget it.

The caveat to this rule is, of course, if you have a site that is very heavily trafficked.

[asdasf]

That's an arbitrary and useless guideline, using made up numbers. If losing 1% of your potential users costs $100k in lost sales a year, and 20% of my time costs $20k, then spending that 20% time seems like a pretty good idea.

[ultimatedelman]

See listed caveat. If 1% of your users are netting you 100k, your site is likely heavily trafficked.

[leo_santagada]

Real teams are doing that all the time, you have to prioritize bugs, they rather fix important stuff and not care for people using IE6-8 and people using linx.