> I set it and use JavaScript to tell them to reload the page
While throwing out all users who opt-in to javascript, using Noscript or uBlock or something like it, may be acceptable collateral damage to you, it might be good to keep in mind that this plays right into Big Adtech's playbook. They spend over two decades to normalize the behavior of running a hundred or more programs of untrusted origin on every page load, and to treat users to opt-in to running code in a document browser with suspicion. Not everyone would like to hand over that power to them on a silver platter with a neat little bow on top.
Oh please. That ship has sailed. I'm marginally sympathetic to people who don't run JavaScript on their browsers for a variety of reasons, but they've deliberately opted out of the de facto modern web. JS is as fundamental to current design as CSS. If you turn it off, things might work, but almost no one is testing that setup, nor should they reasonably be expected to.
This has zero to do with Adtech for 99.99% of uses, either. Web devs like to write TypeScript and React because that's a very pleasant tech stack for writing web apps, and it's not worth the effort for them to support a deliberately hamstrung browser for < 0.1% of users (according to a recent Google report).
See also: feel free to disable PNG rendering, but I'm not going to lift a finger to convert everything to GIFs.
There are many reasons to accommodate non-JS users beyond accommodating people who have intentionally disabled it, and most of them are in accessibility territory.
Be careful with using percentages for your arguments, because this is not that different from saying that 99.99% of people don't need wheelchair access.
This used to be true, but now I don't think it is anymore. Modern frameworks and modern screen readers have no issue with acessibility.
Some survey from WebAIM found that 99.3% of screen reader users have JavaScript enabled.
So... are they really in accessibility territory still? Only people I still see complaining about Javascript being required are people that insist the web should just be static documents with hyperlinks like it was in the early 90s.
Can you find a modern source with valid reasons for accomodating non-JS users?
Slow/lossy connections: JS may not load, but site still works.
Users that prefer non-animated pages and disable JS for this reason.
Users who prioritize security.
Users of older devices in which your JS can trigger errors. Yes, these exist. Not everyone can upgrade their older device. Many people do not even have their own device to use.
Just you wait, I'll get... What's the name of the LLM thing again? ClawFish or something? I forgot — and the LSP is down, so that's that. Anyways, I'll tell the MoltClawde (???) to skillfully vibe code a skill for generating vehement anti-blackpill diatribes, then equip it and reply to your post with a such vehement — but, you know, sort-of lyrical — anti-blackpill diatribe, your pill will shine so much, it will make post-balrog Gandalf look like pre-balrog Gandalf and your own LLMthingmaclaude will wax poetical about not surrendering to generalized societal stupidity while it publishes balrog-related CVEs about curl's GAND_ELF() preprocessor directive.
> that's a very pleasant tech stack for writing web apps
99.9999% of websites shouldn't be apps in the first place.
Anyway have fun fighting AI bots and enshittifying your site in the process. In your case, I'm sure the both operators will have as much sympathy for your plight as you show others.
the recent google report claimed that less than 0.1% of users have javascript disabled ... like for every website, or just some, or?
your PNG/GIF thing is nonsense (false equivalence, at least) and seems like deliberate attempt to insult
> I'm marginally sympathetic
you say that as if they've done some harm to you or anyone else. outside of these three words, you actually seem to see anyone doing this as completely invalid and that the correct course of action is to act like they don't exist.
It would be literally impossible to know whether a user disabled JavaScript on another site, so I'm going to say that they meant that for their own sites.
> you say that as if they've done some harm to you or anyone else.
I was literally responding to someone referring to themselves as "collateral damage" and saying I'm playing into "Big Adtech's playbook". I explained why they're wrong.
> the correct course of action is to act like they don't exist.
Unless someone is making a site that explicitly targets users unwilling or unable to execute JavaScript, like an alternative browser that disables it by default or such, mathematically, yes, that's the correct course of action.
While throwing out all users who opt-in to javascript, using Noscript or uBlock or something like it, may be acceptable collateral damage to you, it might be good to keep in mind that this plays right into Big Adtech's playbook. They spend over two decades to normalize the behavior of running a hundred or more programs of untrusted origin on every page load, and to treat users to opt-in to running code in a document browser with suspicion. Not everyone would like to hand over that power to them on a silver platter with a neat little bow on top.