Interesting, and completely agree with both your remarks, but how does it relate to disabling JavaScript? What are you getting out of it, other than making the web less usable for yourself?
Besides all of that, it makes the web more usable in most cases. Not more functional, more usable. I don't want your site to hijack my browser scroll, nor do I want your modal popups to interrupt me. Plus, I like knowing the level of competency of the site's developers. If it doesn't function at all without enabling a half dozen external scripts/sites, even if I still want to use your site. Which is then unlikely, I know to lower my expectations about how much I can trust you or your site.
I'm against bloated apps and ads, in favor of using forms and HTMLs strengths, but JS is the tool and not the cause of poor design. A web developer that doesn't use it is offloading their identity based allergy onto the users bandwidth.
Plus you can make modals without JS
Show me a single site that uses js in this way. But, and here's the trick... it has to *actually* use less network bandwidth. My issue isn't with js as a web development tool. My issue is with js when it's the wrong tool.
> A web developer that doesn't use it is offloading their identity based allergy onto the users bandwidth.
That's an interesting hypothetical, but I'd be willing to be more user bandwidth is consumed by needless JS scripts, than by all the engineers that you'd call "allergic" to js.
> Plus you can make modals without JS
Show me one that triggers when I scroll too far, or move my mouse outside of the window that doesn't use js?
All of your claims lack evidence... there's plenty of things that sound great in theory, but have been toxic and user hostile every time someone has actually tried to apply said theory.
Lots of sites use JS that way. This was the default way of doing it with JQuery. Yeah, an object with a couple fields is going to use less bandwidth than loading the whole page, in the case of a row.
I agree that you can absolutely find people overusing JS, but your original position was the web is better off without JS. In fact, you implied developers using it weren't competent, but now you've changed it to "actually it's okay if it's used right" which is what I said.
> All of your claims lack evidence.
Nothing I said lacks evidence, in fact they're pretty basic things you can verify? It seems like you want me to prove the entire Internet is using JS how you like. I'm sorry, bad sites are always gonna suck with or without JS
You gave an example that I agree with, that would be a useful use of JS. Does that exist, or is that just a theoretical example? Theoretically, a lot of stuff is good. Theoretically, amphetamines could be over the counter... everyone just needs to use them responsibly!
1) Web is much faster.
2) Often JS makes continuous CPU load, raising speed of CPU fan to noisy levels.
3) Sometimes JS is used for animations, i hate animations on web pages.
4) Sometimes JS is used to auto-play videos (although recent Firefox with proper settings ca block that even with JS enabled in most cases), i hate auto-play videos. That was my primary reason to switch to disabled JS in the past.
5) Often cookie and other pop-ups are implemented with JS and do not show when JS is disabled (while the web still works).
6) Most ads disappear even without ad-blocker.