On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 22:52:07 +0200 <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:35:53PM +0100, Joe wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 14:20:08 -0500 > > Richard Owlett <rowl...@cloud85.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I personally find that JavaScript and cookies rarely provide *ME* any > > > functionality of interest. I surf with both disabled. I don't > > > experience problems I see often reported. YMMV > > > > It does vary indeed. It seems to me that hardly any sites work without > > JavaScript these days. Web designers cannot even make text appear on > > some sites without JS. > > This is actually for me a filter criterion: if a site doesn't work > with javascript, chances are high that I avoid it. I do make some > exceptions, but very few. > > I do accept some degraded performance, but that's it.
Question: is this due to a belief that such sites are (at least for your use cases) at best marginally more useful than their non-JS utilizing alternatives, or due to a desire to punish such sites or an ethical objection to them? I certainly need to use numerous sites (bill paying, banking, etc.) that require JS to function. Celejar
