I download static maps. I prefer maps as images or images in a PDF. But I understand your comment. Indeed it is the textual data that is at issue with respec

I download static maps. I prefer maps as images or images in a PDF. But I understand your comment. Indeed it is the textual data that is at issue with respect to gratuitous javascript use. A large amount of data maybe even the majority is already textual. For this data, from a user's persective there is no valid argument that "supporting" users who want to read text requires additonal work. Serving textual data certainly does not require javascript. The "arrogance" if any is displyed by a website owner who for some unexplained reason does not want to let any users (e.g. 0.1%) read text without runing javascript. As if any user who does not care about whether the website makes use of the latest popular browser features is a user they do not want. But maybe that is not really the reason. It is the last sentence in your comment that is the interesting one. Perhaps the use of javascript is designed to take something from the customer e.g. personal data via some discreet mechanism that requires running code on the user's computer. If this is true, then one might argue it becomes clear why website owners do not want users who do not use javascript. Because the website cannot take something from the user where the mechanism of extraction is powered by javascript. If that is the case, it may inform the user about the website e.g. any website that tries to force users to use javascript may be one that is trying to extract something from the user. And as such may be a wesbite that the user should avoid. As a sidenote, websites routinely serve content as text without the use of javascript because that is how they are most efficiently indexed by Google. Thus the website must "support" Googlebot. Some users may be quite satisified with the "Googlebot version" of the website.