I know people dislike when I comment on this, but your page is empty when visited with disabled Javascript. So please, if you ever consider putting some more work into it deliver a static info page when JS is disabled!

And btw, when I enabled it (Noscript) the page loaded forever and again did not show anything - but I guess you may get some more visits now that you've linked it here.

The reason people dislike it is it's a simple question of ROI - how much would it really help his funnel to work on support for users who intentionally break the web vs other aspects of his product?

The only thing that breaks the web is developers who do not care about compatibility and performance. If I would not be harrassed and slowed down on every second hipster page with 1000s of external resources I would consider going back to default-on javascript.

The fact that simple HTML delivery can be remarketed as "AMP" is a joke.

Additionally, from a designing perspective it's a good thing to render the first page statically so it does not need to talk to a backend when the visitor is most likely going to close the page after looking at the landing page.

You may have that opinion, but 9,999 other users don't. Who counts more to a creator trying to generate a paycheck?

If you really want to make it as an entrepreneur, dogma has to go out the window, and data based decisions have to be front and center, especially when weighted for cost/benefit.

If data shows that search engines don't link to your site and don't index your content, that would be action actionable data.

> The fact that simple HTML delivery can be remarketed as "AMP" is a joke.

Ohhh I so hear you. Thanks for voicing reason in a sea of hipsterity.

Also I do agree with the sentiment, that data decisions should lead an entrepreneur. Non the less everyone should be able to at least grasp an idea of any site.

Yeah, I hear you. The problem is that its only me and there are literally one hundred other higher priority tasks I need to work on. I will give that one a bump though :)

If you provide a side by side comparison on the landing page of audio samples, that would make me instantly choose zencastr vs other products ...

Further, 'Free' should be immediately visible above the fold on the landing page.

How do you use the internet in 2016 without JavaScript?

AFAIK all modern browsers offer the ability to turn off JavaScript globally. Add-ons such as NoScript for Firefox give you more control though. I use NoScript to have all JS disabled by default on a page, and turn on/enable specific sources as necessary. On zencastr, I noticed that the page wasn't loading so I temporarily white-listed the site, and it is visible now.

A common and, IMO not-unreasonable view is that all content on the web should be viewable on the web with just HTML and CSS (sometimes even without the latter) and thus JS should never be required save for specific tasks such as in-browser computation and the like. That's a bit extreme for me, so I just white-list scripts as needed.

I use NoScript for security reasons. I find that I usually only have to turn on 1 or 2 scripts to get the content on the site to show. If even that as many show it without scripts. It's a tiny percentage, often using fancy crap underneath, that absolutely require JavaScript to even see static content. I don't loose much ignoring them but gain plenty in security, loading speed, and battery savings.

You disable it in your browser or most likely run something like noscript to maintain a white list.

I think parent meant: how is the Internet usable with javascript turned off? How can you bear it?

^ as evident by the replies I wasn't as obvious as I could have been.

Around 1% of users run without js. If you have a commercial site you will loose money and users if you don't think about this.

Will you though? What's the cost of the extra development and maintenance you'll need to do to cater for such a tiny sliver of the population, many of whom will just whitelist your site if they're interested in your content?

Around 1% of users run linux. If you have a commercial videogame, you will lose money and users if you don't think about this.

Now consider the ROI. I'm a full time linux user myself, and still I understand when someone says 'sorry but such a small market share is not worth bothering with.'

Pretty sure to the nearest approximation that at this point everyone who is browsing the internet without javascript knows that they have javascript disabled and knows that it will break sites. What's the point of an error message explaining that to them?