A website that is able to function without JavaScript increases its accessibility, that doesn't mean that the user explicitly disabled JavaScript. You could be

A website that is able to function without JavaScript increases its accessibility, that doesn't mean that the user explicitly disabled JavaScript. You could be on a train in a 5G-equipped country with an unreliable connection. Have you came across a website having problems with stylesheets completely missing, due to CORS, caching, etc? If the document is able to carry out navigation, without having to rely on downloading a non-negligeable amount of JS to hydrate the page, it improves the experience for that 90th percentile enourmously. Us web developers are often privileged with a very good internet connections. It's not necessarily anti-JS thinking, and SSR for crawlers generally as no longer been relevant for a number of years, it improves UX. Edit: this also reminds me of [1], a 8.5 MB HTML file with 27.5k tweets was faster to paint than a single tweet in a React application. It depends on whether the UX can be improved by using more JS, for most websites I think less is more. [1]: https://twitter.com/zachleat/status/1169998370041208832?s=20&t=VycupaP8XjUOzMGPiM7CNw https://twitter.com/zachleat/status/1169998370041208832?s=20...