Unlike when serving people with disabilities, which you can't understand and test well if you're not disabled yourself (or specially trained), as a developer yo

Unlike when serving people with disabilities, which you can't understand and test well if you're not disabled yourself (or specially trained), as a developer you should automatically be aware when you'd exclude people without JS. Nobody special needed for testing, just a resistance to implement navigation with JS only, or worse, JS-only content. Until now most content-heavy sites (like most university sites) are not problematic for the most part (1). Which I suppose is why there's no complaining till now. By having a healthy community of users with JS disabled, hopefully there will be enough complaints when it gets worse. (1) the static parts, which is most URLs used during the day. If I encounter a site that requires JS to log in, I'll open a separate browser with JS. If I encounter a page that only shows the content with JS, I just close it unread, unless in the very rare case that it's important to me (most important content is still not relying on JS).