It's not about using js or not, it's about failing gracefully. An empty page instead of a simple written article is not acceptable.

A lot of this interactivity is complete bullshit, especially on sites that are mostly just for static data like news articles or blog posts, the JS is there for advertisement and analytics and social media, tracking and other bullshit.

The fastest and smoothest websites are usually personal blogs of software engineers, no ads, no social media, no tracking, no pointless comments threads and no gimmicky UI animations, just text and images and if they do add interactive components it's usually done in a good way

That site is literally just static content. Yes JS is needed for interactivity, but there's none here

I'll take an API and a curl call over JavaScript any day of the week.

Stop, can only get so erect. Give me that please than the bullshit I have to wade trough today to find information. When is the store open. E-mailadress/phone. Like fuck if I want to engage

Ehhhhh it kinda' depends. Most things that are merely changing how something already present on the page is displayed? Probably don't need JS. Doing something cool based on the submit or response of a form? Probably don't need JS. Changing something dynamically based off of what the user is doing? Might not need JS!

Need to do some computation off of the response of said form and change a bunch of the page? You probably need JS. Need to support older browsers simply doing all of the previously described things? Probably need JS.

It really, really depends on what needs to happen and why. Most websites are still in the legacy support realm, at least conceptually, so JS sadly is required for many, many websites. Not that they use it in the most ideal way, but few situations are ideal in the first place.

A lot of this is just non-tech savvy people failing to understand the limitations and history of the internet.

(this isn't to defend the BS modern corporations pull, but just to explain the "how" of the often times shitty requirements the web devs are dealing with)

it sounds like you're saying there's an easy solution to get websites that don't have shit moving on you nonstop with graphics and non-content frames taking up 60% of the available screen

it's crazy that on a 1440p monitor, I still can't just see all the content I want on one screen. nope, gotta show like 20% of it and scroll for the rest. and even if you zoom out, it will automatically resize to keep proportion, it won't show any of the other 80%

I'm not a web dev. but I am a user, and I know the experience sucks.

if I'm looking at the results of a product search and I see five results at a time because of shitty layout, I just don't buy from that company

I can do it but it’s hard convincing clients to double their budget for customers with accessible needs they’re not equipped to support in other channels.

That being said, my personal sites and projects all do it. And I’m thankful for accessible website laws where I’m from that make it mandatory for companies over a certain size to include accessible supports that need to work when JS is disabled.

wild thing is that with modern css and local fonts (nerdfonts, etc), you can make a simple page with a modern grid and nested css without requiring a single third party library or js.

devs are just lazy.

I'm a webdev. I agree. I like react.