I always wonder if the developer should care? The only front-ends I write these days are admin backends for my own company, so I very specifically don't care.
That said, is there any data on browser share with JS turned off? Because I'm sure I'm being obtuse, and I know I can be accused of being a dick, but I doubt I would care very much.
My company makes mobile games. We don't support below Android 4, we don't support below iOS 6. Not allowing JS completely is absurd, IMHO, and much like expecting developers to continue to support IE 6. It's 2015, JS is the programming language of the browser-based Internet, and expecting developers to cripple their own applications to support a vanishingly small amount of people that block JS may simply make no sense, economically speaking.
Accessibility. Screen readers allegedly support JS - I don't use one - but I think we can agree it's a harder problem to solve than HMTL.
Not to get too much on my high horse, since you're clearly in an area where there's no way you could ever support vision impairment, the problem with ignoring vanishingly small portions of an audience is that the same people tend to be in that portion all the time and never get anything. For apps that aren't expecting interactions more than every ten seconds, it's so easy to just give them flat HTML.
Nowadays screen readers are fine with the full-blown web, JS and all. The bigger practical issue is simpler things, like not putting alt tags on pictures, or abusing pictures (I saw a stupid website which put alt tags on spacer gifs).
There it is. Thanks. I agree, accessibility should be considered. It's actually extremely difficult in mobile games as engines like Unity have almost no accessibility support whereas UIKit does a really fantastic job.
In any case, I'm definitely for making a site mostly accessible (I've encountered edge cases where it is weird) and if current screen readers support most JS, then I'd test for accessibility, not necessarily all-stop lack of JS.
Ah, sorry about that. I agree there should at least be an error message.
We originally built this as a page on openlistings.co (/fixers), but then found this awesome domain. The assets are all the same from openlistings.co, we're just checking the current domain in our Backbone.js router. Kind of hacky, but it was the quickest way to get it up! Also, if you click any of the detail pages you need the rest of the assets anyway because it takes you back to openlistings.co. Long story short, it's pulling in assets and doing API calls to openlistings.co.
Considering that hosting javascript (and fonts and files) externally leaks information about your visitors to third partys hopefully some developers will care about their users' privacy and not do that.
It used to be that "doesn't work with javascript" also implied "breaks the back button, sucks for SEO, isn't accessible and I can't email urls to people"
It was a convenient short-hand for many things but it's not very reliable in that regard any more.
This site seems fairly solid at first glance so personally speaking I'm not the slightest bit bothered that it doesn't work with javascript disabled.
