4 ms·

This won't be popular, but only a tiny minority of users have JavaScript disabled (~0.5% to 1.5%, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/No-JavaScript_notes https://www

This won't be popular, but only a tiny minority of users have JavaScript disabled (~0.5% to 1.5%, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/No-JavaScript_notes https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/No-JavaScript_notes) and many page interactions and third party services require JavaScript (forms, animations, pop-ups, payments, captchas, logins) so why would companies invest budget into progressive enhancement and adding that on top of already tedious cross-browser testing? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but this has never been on the radar let alone seen as important with any clients wanting websites that I've worked with, the same way most aren't going to prioritise Internet Explorer support for ~2% of users (https://kinsta.com/browser-market-share/ https://kinsta.com/browser-market-share/). Non-tech people and many developers don't even know what this is and most likely have JavaScript enabled themselves so it's going to be a hard sell, especially when they see their popular competitors have JavaScript heavy websites.

marginalia_nu 5y ago
Well on the flip-side, these rare configurations are a niche. I think a lot of companies do themselves a disservice by focusing on the same lowest common denominator as everyone else. That is where all the competition is. If you can get 0.5-1.5% of the market and seize it all for yourself, that's not a bad foot in the door. For comparison, DDG has about 0.7% of the search market.