i haven't created a site for the domain yet
If your site is supporting elderly people in developing nations on low-specced computers/phones, probably a website isn’t even the best vehicle for your product, but supporting no-JS might be more significant for accessibility and bandwidth reasons.
I suspect the vast majority of products people work on here would not gain much by working without JS, although some passionate and outspoken people make it seem otherwise.
There's a lot of pie in the sky JavaScript discussion where folks talk about going without / this site doesn't need JS and so forth and I imagine they're talking about sites largely with static content and text where the user just consumes that and doesn't interact much beyond navigation.
I think those are valid points to some extent... and I'm not sure how many sites really are purely static no matter how much we might wish they were. I admit I miss that internet too but ...
On the other hand I work on a lot of 'web applications' for businesses... zero JS is not really an option.
As for how many people care overall about a lack of JS on a page, I'm pretty sure it is very small.
If it is a web application that has tons of interactivity with a user, it would be of not much use without JS.
withoutjs.org could be a really useful directory of:
- sites that work without JS
- sites that work partially without JS (and what features are broken/missing)
- sites that use JS to abuse their audience, and that should only be viewed with JS disabled
- advocacy and resources to make sites work better without JS
- advocacy and resources for developers to reduce their page weight
Just like CSS is a tool to create prettier pages. And HTML is an tool to create layouts and links.
I do think JS should be treated like a permission though. Just like asking for camera access... but apparently the JS sandbox is completely isolated so that's not at all necessary...
* interactions using CSS
* accessibility
* improved content
* improved html
* seo