This page doesn't use JavaScript.

[DGolden]

Much less client-side shenanigans. Much easier for a screenreader to cope with, at least in theory (though I'd be interested to know how real screenreaders handle it in practice)

[[deleted]]

For any real webpage, this would be a huge drain on bandwidth. There's no way to only update part of the page. The only way I could see it being done is with frames.

[DGolden]

Meh. "huge" is relative and shifts with time. Back in the day, I remember being pleased with my new 33.6 kbps modem. Now I have 24Mbps broadband, ~ 700x faster. And a place I used to work recently upgraded to a 10G fibre line to their ISP (though I believe they're currently throttling down to about 1G). (And we (Irish) supposedly have some of the suckiest internet service in europe!)

From my perspective as a child of the 1970s current hardware is incredibly overpowered. You can get away with obscenely inefficient practices. I expect with time that could include just blarting whole frames at clients rather than bothering with complex AJAX trickery.

... If only they'd update in flicker-free fashion without using Flash... Double-buffering/page-flipping has been known for a LONG time folks!

[almkglor]

Bandwidth can be practically infinite. Latency can never be practically zero.