> Sadly things have reached the point where this is just not realistic anymore. Too many websites just fail to work altogether, and I was spending way too much time whitelisting sites.
I have a very simple solution to this: website breaks and has no legitimate reason for using scripts? Good bye website. I don't do web development, so worst case scenario is website breaks so I get my ass back to work sooner.
I know one person is too little to make a difference, but I don't care. I'll stick to it for as long as I can, and continue to deprieve the owners of such badly designed websites of any revenue from my side.
It's the same with any media, really. I sift through a book and find it's badly printed and barely readable? I don't buy it. For instance, it's stuff like this that gets on my nerves:
> Thanks to frameworks like Angular and Backbone, you can build applications that contain no data in the HTML document at all. Hypertext without any actual hypertext.
If there is no hypertext in your application, why the fuck are you using a hypertext protocol in the first place? Just like I wouldn't buy an electric car that requires me to purchase gasoline just because, you know, it's a car, so you need to buy gasoline with it, even if you don't use it (because the motor doesn't run on gasoline!), I simply don't use an application that runs on top of HTTP, but has no, um, HT.
Edit: I do think there's a lot of strength in the crowd here. 90% of the websites that break with disabled JS break because of poor/lazy programmers or because of script abuse, that's trying to siphon as much data as possible. If users demanded a minimum level of quality from the WWW and refused anything below them, the designers and website owners would eventually have to cope.
Unfortunately, the Internet literacy of most Internet users is basically inexistent, so there is little to build upon when asking for quality standards.