Shouldn't we use

Question

I found some good cons here:

• The noscript element only detects whether the browser has JavaScript enabled or not. If JavaScript is disabled in the Firewall

Answer 1

The "noscript" element is not supported in XML or in XHTML5 polyglot, so not recommended by the W3C.

I also do not like the idea that every page starts out with a no-script viewable div that is then hidden by some Javascripted circus trick on every page of a website. Dangerous and more scripting dependencies that could fail or wreak havoc if changed by a later developer.

A better strategy is to design your site with a basic html design that wraps around all inner scripted content so the user at least sees a page design with a header and a place where basic content would appear. If its empty its pretty obvious they cannot view the content for a reason. I would then add a tiny message or information icon in the footer saying, if you see no content your javascript is disabled. That appears whether they see scripted content or not. This solution is scripting free.

As a last resort you could have that message be hidden by scripts using display:none at the bottom of every web page.

It's not as sexy as providing alternate content or a message box, but in the case of heavy Angular websites you would have to create a new content page for them anyway should scripting be disabled. This solution also accounts for no script support in a user-agent versus disabled support, and makes your web page 100% XML and HTML5 compatible with all user agents by avoiding the noscript tag.