You disable JS, you make most websites unusable out of the box. You don't even need to go that far; disable web fonts and half the websites' buttons become undecipherable.
Technically those might be options, but in reality you have no other choice if you want to use the web.
I would like to see something in the middle. Instead of defaulting to no javascript, default to "javascript lite". But make "javascript lite" full-featured enough that it makes building websites _easier_. I know a lot of people have tried this already, so clearly it's a hard problem, but I think there's a market for it. There's a reason why wordpress, geocities, myspace, medium, and even AMP all exist. Limiting a content creator's options can make things simpler, and people want simple.
Imagine a technology where I can test my page on one browser and be confident it looks right everywhere, not because the browser has market dominance, but because all the hard work of targeting the lowest common denominator has already been done for me. When was the last time you thought "hmm I better check and make sure this markdown document renders correctly in safari"? I think this is where the world is heading, and it's why so many sites are supporting markdown syntax. But there are so many markdown flavors and engines that we've just pushed the problem to a different level of the tech stack. But I think the concept is sound, even if the technology is still evolving toward that ideal.
> It is an option, the web has just evolved past no-javascript sites.
For many sites it is not an option. If you disable JavaScript then it does not render at all. I've also run across web sites that do not work at all if cookies are blocked.
IMHO this kind of design is just retarded. If you want certain functionality dependent on those features being active, I can understand that. But them being disabled should not prevent the web server from sending me HTML and CSS so something renders on my screen.
