That is like saying "most of our customers use the drive thru, so we will COMPLETELY CLOSE our restaurant to foot traffic".
A hybrid approach is best, especially when this article is literally text and some photos.
A hybrid approach is best, especially when this article is literally text and some photos.
If I ran a restaurant and 98.7% of my revenue came from the drive through I'd seriously consider shutting the foot traffic part down.
Finally, that's the UK. Students in India trying to learn about space may not have the internet speeds we're used to, and might browse with JS disabled because that's the literally the only way they can afford to without blowing data caps.
Anyway, you'll never catch me doing it unless I'm testing my own site, but it's definitely forward-thinking and kinda polite to have SOME sort of fallback for people without JS enabled.
[1] https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/57340/percentage-of-s...
Given infinite resources I'd do all three but the with JS experience and accessibility matters more (to me).
I don't think that's unreasonable, given that the meat here is just plain text, something that web has been capable of delivering years before your javascript crutch became widely available.
Bit harsh, my personal blog has zero javascript.