Nice catch, but I think you&#x27;re a little too harsh. First of all, the site looks better than most other sites, with js off (I also use noscript). Secondly, one has to ask why js is disabled. The site probably looks as fine as it could in lynx or w3m. A spider can read the semantic markup fine. A screenreader while pronounce the text as well (or poorly) as is.<p>I think most people realize that there are certain limits to the combination of <i>just</i> html and css -- and that js can be used to change the trade-off between &quot;good&quot; and &quot;perfect&quot;.<p>All that said, I also wish one could simply add a link to a font-file in the &lt;head&gt;-element and be done with it. But as web fonts are an attack vector, the people that run noscript, shouldn&#x27;t be able to see that webfont either -- unless they take an action to trust the publisher in question (the site&#x2F;host).