Yes, the Flash analogy was probably a poor one considering the ubiquity of iOS - you can no longer make the argument about not having to cater to people without Flash, because at this point there are so many of them.
If you can't access a website because Javascript is turned off, then I think you are overcomplicating things anyway. There are obviously cases where it is required, but as the author states, it should be pretty easy to explain why you need to enable scripting!
Take Lifehacker as an example: http://lifehacker.com/
What about their content requires JavaScript? Absolutely nothing. You have to enable scripts from three different places to see the content. The irony is that this website is called LifeHacker, for people who like to hack things (but turning off Javascript is just pure sorcery)
- click search, it drops down a search bar without reloading the page. Fast, nice.
- actually do the search - updates in place.
- on the sidebar, no reload for switching between "most popular" and "latest"
- ok lets read an article. Ah, selecting one loads the article into the pane, so I dont lose my place in the search on the side - lovely.
- Commenting: done in line, has inline font selection, I can include a picture or URL. Very nice experience.
- Oh, and 2 of my friends read lifehacker according to their Facebook plugin. Interesting - I didnt know they read that, I must mention it to them.
I posit that the search bar should be static, that is, always visible. It actually took me a while to find out that I was supposed to click the little magnifying glass.
- actually do the search - updates in place. Again, confusing. It wasn't immediately apparent that the search results actually displayed below the search bar.
- on the sidebar, no reload for switching between "most popular" and "latest" This is a good use case for Javascript. However, if Javascript is not present why would it not default to just opening separate pages for each of the tabs?
- Commenting: again, why does it need Javascript? Slashdot commenting system works just fine without Javascript, as an example.
I'm not questioning WHY they are using Javascript - obviously, you are getting plenty of use from that method. I am questioning why it is necessary to have those features to view content?
For a start, I dont think we should be second guessing their design. No doubt they have the customer development, usage figures, A/B tests, design tests, etc, to know that this is right for them.
But if you think a static version would be better (for most people), you're dreaming. At this point I suspect there's no point continuing the conversation - we have dramatically different world views if you think there's a comparison.
So the remaining question is, should they also have a no-javascript version for the 2% of people who turn off JS? Since it costs them double the effort, I can see why they chose not to.
Really? I guess you are right that this conversation is over. I'm sorry, but Lifehacker is not the end-all-be-all design mecca of the 21st century, quite the contrary, in fact. I only picked on the Javascript issue -- there are plenty more issues to discuss if you want to discuss design.
It's not about 2% of the population who don't use Javascript. It's about the fact that they're doing something fundamentally wrong if they require Javascript for displaying a simple web page with some content.
I'm not saying it's the be-all-and-end-all at all, there are lots of design problems. But arguing UX design with someone who believes sites shouldn't be using JS? It's just not a credible position.
Simple web pages are not simple. What makes them simple is that the complexity is hidden. JS is a major part of hiding that complexity, whether it's for preloading data, "don't make me click", or just hiding away things you don't need yet.
The search is a great example: I suspect almost nobody uses search, and I also suspect that those who use search use it a great deal. I suspect that Lifehacker has those "where do people click" charts that show them that information, and that as a result they made it powerful, but decided against giving it a whole bar.
Likewise comments. They hid away most of the commenting chrome because 99% of people dont comment, and they want to engage them with the existing comments.
There is no such thing as "a simple web page with some content". It is naive to think that it is, and I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that it shows that you have not spent significant time working on web UX issues in a cross-browser environment.
Don't forget that LifeHacker is part of Gawker. There's about a dozen sites in that network, probably all using the same codebase. What proportion of Jezebel readers do you think use NoScript?
AFAIK, lifehacker shares a codebase with Gawker, Jezebel, Gizmodo, and a few other sites. How many Jezebel readers use NoScript?
Really? Etherpad, Google Wave, Google Docs. Every HTML5 game I've ever seen. Aviary, Picnik, Picozu. etc.
I generally agree with the point that most sites that present text to a screen don't absolutely NEED JS to work, but there are a myriad of apps out there that do.
Even with these web apps, I think its best to explain why JavaScript is needed. Except for google analytics, I'm still a huge fan of Unobtrusive JavaScript, if only because it makes for cleaner site organisation and code separation.