Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are allowed to skip the game. But offering it is not egregiously unnecessary. The javascript, while flawed, is there for a valid reason. > I did not click the submission title to watch replays, or even simple media animations. I clicked it expecting a theory of lawn-mowing to be conveyed. They use the replays to convey it. Insisting on pure text is another layer of unreasonable insistence on how to do things.
> You are allowed to skip the game. No, I'm not. If I don't have JavaScript enabled, then I don't see the post-game content. > But offering it is not egregiously unnecessary. It hasn't been offered to me. What is egregiously unnecessary is the requirement to enable JavaScript in order to read plain text explaining the conclusion. Because when one has actual conclusions, presenting them in plain text is trivial; doing…
I meant the reader in general.
> It hasn't been offered to me.
The game has been offered to you. You are actively refusing the offer. Using javascript to make that offer is not a bad thing. The problem is not having a fallback that warns you.
Which simplifies to: The site uses javascript for a valid reason. It's valid even though you don't want it.
> Because when one has actual conclusions, presenting them in plain text is trivial; doing it any other way is what requires additional effort.
> No, it is not. It is the most basic and fundamental principle of how the WWW works.
Do you get this mad at videos? Some things are fundamentally not text.
Progressive enhancement is a general purpose strategy, not a requirement for every situation.