zlacker

> This website will not [...] tell you fibs

That's literally the only thing it did until I reconfigured my browser to access it. It's a misuse of `<noscript>` and it's completely unnecessarily intruding on how I use my own computer to access the content. I thought that was the kind of thing people here (especially the anti-JS people) frown upon.

>>eyelid+(OP)
I’ll add that I’m currently building a website, taking great care that it will be fully operational without JS, and progressively enhance components where there’s some interaction I want to provide to people who accept it. I wholeheartedly agree that there’s way too much JS trash on websites, and that it’s all sorts of vectors for abuse. But this kind of hamfisted response is really painfully unhelpful. You don’t have to browse with JS enabled, and you’re welcome to encourage people to make the web work without it again. But making content inaccessible without finding an obscure browser setting isn’t going to appeal to anyone except the people who are already locked and loaded.

My philosophy is: set a good example, make the benefit clear, and communicate with other devs who might not realize the horror show they’re sending down the wire/executing in their users’ browsers. But forcing people to figure out how to disable something increasingly hard to disable before they can even hear you is not good communication.

I only clicked the link because I was hoping there would be a regular site under default config and some special treat with JS disabled. Progressive enhancement. That would have been a clever and compelling execution.