It's still a crappy version - since when do browsers need javascript in order to display images?
I know that it is off-topic, and the topic of the article is much more serious than web technology, but I feel it is always worth pointing out that if a high-profile website like www.nationalgeographic.com can't provide elementary functionality without javascript, what hope is there for the smaller websites?
In this case, though, I am glad the images are not shown, the text description was gruesome enough.
"SORRY, YOU NEED TO ENABLE JAVASCRIPT TO VISIT THIS WEBSITE." it tells me. I do. I see flat, plain text with some images. WTF. Don't be those web devs, guys!
I had to view the source to read the article since it seems text won't display without javascript. I know it's considered a lost battle to expect sites to at least make basic static content (text/images) accessible without needing to execute 3rd-party code/trackers, but I still judge sites that can't.
reply