It's probably because you opted to disable one of the essential web technologies in your browser. Plenty of websites are written as SPAs nowadays. This is like complaining that pages are black on white because you disabled CSS. Or that you can't see websites at all because you uninstalled your browser.
It is entirely unlike the examples you gave. Especially because his browser does show ~99% of the internet properly (with various degrees of functionality, but still something does come up), and that there spiders, proxies, screenreaders, and other useful software which will also see nothing on this page.
I've bookmarked this site: "Testing a React-driven website’s SEO using “Fetch as Google" https://medium.freecodecamp.com/using-fetch-as-google-for-se...
That talks about this. Not had a chance to verify this. just a fyi.
It's a static list of items. Hardly very efficient to load all that javascript, do a server request, just to display a list is it.
It wouldn't run without JavaScript being enabled, for one.
Only they wanted to drm javascript sent to the browser. We got rid of Flash only to see a new hydra head emerge. People clamoring for javascript applications should be careful what they wish for. They just might get it.
Still, this guy did it (took a long time between this site being up and the post on HN that instigated it) while the rest of the readers in that thread who thought it would be a good idea, including me, didn't. So kudos for 'just doing it' anyway.
Edit: I checked hours ago and then it was clean but apparently there is no moderation on it either... So this site would've taken literally less than an hour including hosting setup to put together? Still I didn't do it while I did like FuckedCompany and think it's good to have something like it.
Would you ever make the argument: "this website would be so much easier to use with a little Javascript, but Javascript is bad for the environment, so it should remain without"?
If not, the environment isn't actually a factor in the reasoning process. It's just a club to wield when it supports what you've already decided is the correct answer.
Now I agree that in the case we're discussing, the JS actually brings a negative difference as it doesn't enhance anything and makes the website unusable without JS and thus a lot less accessible. So here the environmental factor is secondary.
Suppose the environmental impacts of the HTML-only page and the JS-driven page were flipped, but the user experience remained exactly the same - the JS-driven page still takes longer to download, uses more memory, and doesn't work unless JS is enabled; but it's marginally better for the environment, by the same amount that the HTML-only page is better in the real world. Do you now think the JS-driven page is preferable?
If not, you don't get to use the environment to argue for the HTML-only page. It doesn't sway you, so you shouldn't use it to sway others.
About your second §: your example makes absolutely no sense, and additionally it's not at all an "all other thing being equal" case. But if I had to attempt to answer you anyway, I'd say that in that case the fact that the better environmental impact of the JS-driven version is an argument that it has for it, and at least lessen the difference in the overall evaluations of the two options.
If you want to take it seriously, I recommend quantifying the impact as a first step. If your calculations show it's worth taking seriously, I'll happily change my mind.
"lessen the difference in the overall evaluations of the two options" is not enough. "This is a serious factor that I care about and you should care about it too, but if it was completely reversed, that wouldn't actually change the outcome": I'm not buying it.
Disabling JS displays nothing at all, while changing text and background color is a progressive enhancement.
Content should still be accessible without JavaScript, even if, perhaps, in a less convenient way, i.e., every click reloads the entire page
It's not an arbitrary rule, it's just that they always have.
That's the hole point of progressive enhancement, you don't start requiring some technology as soon as it reaches x% market share and ignore the remaining minority. You build on top and offer a better experience to those that can or want.
In the apps world, it's usual to draw a line on a set of minimum system requirements and expect that line to move forward as the years go by.
But this is the Web, being accessible should be a priority.
It's the World Wide Web. Being accessible to everyone is the whole point.
We have other platforms that target specific markets. That's fine. But we only have one Web.
I got used to this comfortable way of browsing the web and seeing more sites that don't work without JS doesn't make me happy.
However a "website" has the purpose of 'displaying information' -- essentially some form of text + images akin to a newspaper page. In those cases JavaScript is an enhancement but ought not be a requirement.
For a web application though, not using JavaScript is like a car pulled by donkeys. Sure you can sit in it and try to steer but it doesn't provide optimal functionality.
However on the other hand, anyone expecting a good web experience in 2016 without JavaScript is fighting a Quixotic battle.
You're making a conscious decision based on the trade-offs at hand and saying that every website should double down on server side rendering to cater to your intolerance of how modern web browsing works. That's just not feasible.
If your site looks like garbage when I turn the javascript off, fair enough. If your site breaks because it needs to do client side process, then that's on me, fair call.
But if your website can't even load text without javascript, then you're using a carpenters square as a hammer. Loading text is what html does. That's it's one and only job, and it's really fucking good at it. Way better at it than javascript is.
If your website cannot load text without javascript, you're a shitty developer, because you're rejecting the objectively correct tool and shoehorning a far more complex tool into it's place. That's how you get security vulnerabilities and high maintenance costs. It's the very definition of over engineering.