But it's perfectly reasonable to let someone know that the website might be broken for those to whom it is most likely to appeal. A more precise suggestion about how to fix it would have been nice, however.
Those who know/have cause to/have manifestation of paranoia that manifests as turn off javascript completely are certainly more likely to see the appeal for the slide show. I only made it about halfway through. Not that it's not an important topic, but not my top priority right now. A syllabus would have been useful so that I may see if I have missed something without having to spend another 10 minutes.
It can be quite useful for someone to make a suggestion that can make the website have larger appeal. It just can be. I count my suggestion for a syllabus as one.
But as a stronger example, aljazeera.com recently started redirecting ips from the US to the subdomain america.aljazeera.com. I couldn't get around it without a proxy. I wrote them an email suggesting they make the old site ("english") an option from the front page (I pointed to CNN.com as an example). They wrote me back saying they changed it and, when I went there, they even had a pop-up that allowed me to have the english site as my default. They had deliberately put in the functionality but didn't realize that some of us wanted their European coverage, not their America coverage.
In this case maybe the site will offer alternative formats. Maybe they hadn't thought of it.
I also have sites that ignore non-javascript enabled browsers- but they are web-apps and are explicit about the need for js. If I had a normal site with a widget that broke for certain people I very well might take such a comment into serious consideration. It is more helpful, as I said earlier, if such criticism also suggests something that might work well. Otherwise it just sounds like bitching.
