On Sun, 20 May 2012 22:37:28 -0400, Arne Vajh°j <email@example.com>
>On 5/11/2012 12:41 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:09:48 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-11, Arne Vajh°j<email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2012 11:52 PM, markspace wrote:
>>>>> On 5/8/2012 6:03 PM, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
>>>>> Sure I often have to enable JS, but only after I've seen the site first.
>>>>> If it looks dodgy, I just leave. And often I can still click on a few
>>>>> links or read an article without JS. It's rare I'll enable JS if I just
>>>>> need one thing from a site.
>>>> That does not sound as 2012 to me.
>> I decide on site use by something other than fashion.
>> There are many Websites that are not decked out in a fashionable
>> manner but that are very useful. I prefer them.
>That is your privilege.
>Just be prepared that the share of web sites working without
>JS will drop every year.
I have not noticed that, but it really does not matter. If the
proportion of useful sites to non-useful sites is low. What matters
is the number of useful sites, and yes, I do find enough of them.
functionality is a fairly good indication that the Website will not be
useful to me.