Sorry, but no it's not. You're in the extreme minority if you don't have JS or CSS. It's simply not even worth the time to cater to you.

> It's simply not even worth the time to cater to you.

That attitude is evil. That attitude underlies much (albeit not all) that is wrong with the Web in 2016. That attitude is wrong.

Espousing that attitude evidences a profound failure to understand the value of the Web.

It takes more time to make an unfriendly JavaScript UI then it takes to make normal pages.

It is worth the time to make your pages without JavaScript if you care about googlability, and accessibility.

To add to it, the issue is about purpose. There's nothing wrong with an application that needs JavaScript because it can't function without it. My day job is one such application, and I've written others as side-projects (anything that does calculations without a server-side component is an instance).

But this presentation is just a bunch of text with navigation. This is what the web was written for, and it should work no matter whether you have CSS or JavaScript on, and it should use progressive enhancement to add on the useful features. That means using hyperlinks for navigation and CSS that doesn't hide all the content until your JS loads (which seems to be the problem with Chrome. The page actually is readable in Lynx).

> At this point those are given prerequisites.

No, no they are not. JavaScript is a privacy-destroying technology. It is a security-impairing technology. It is also pretty neat: it can be great in self-hosted applications, and it can add nice functionality when users trust a site.

Requiring it is akin to a restaurant requiring customers to deposit their wallets at the bar; it's akin to the police requiring the ability to read one's mind (with the promise that they won't abuse the privilege). Requiring JavaScript in order to display text and images is like the guys at the carwash requiring you to give them your house key as well as your car keys.

>No, no they are not. JavaScript is a privacy-destroying technology. It is a security-impairing technology. It is also pretty neat: it can be great in self-hosted applications, and it can add nice functionality when users trust a site.

First, whether it's "privacy-destroying" or "security-impairing" is orthogonal to it being a prerequisite for the modern web. Especially since 99% of the people don't see it that way in the first place.

Second, they (government etc) can read all your mails, tap the backbones, and store your phone-calls, even track your moves through cell towers, and know everyone you spoke with. The websites you visit is probably the least interesting information about you.

>Requiring it is akin to a restaurant requiring customers to deposit their wallets at the bar; it's akin to the police requiring the ability to read one's mind

It's akin to this argument going nowhere because of hyperbole...