title: Relevance of <noscript>
body: <p>There seems to be some scenario's where <code>&lt;noscript&gt;</code> succesfully assists in graceful degradation. We all learned why the tag's there and how to use it. As far as I am aware, there are 2 major reasons:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>the <code>disable JavaScript</code> option</li>
  <li>screen readers.</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>On the first one, <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9478737/browser-statistics-on-javascript-disabled">statistics are hard to get hold of</a>, but it's easy to test for yourself. Also, I've never encountered the need for <code>&lt;noscript&gt;</code> myself to fix some graceful degradation scenario, but that might be just me.</p>
  
  <p>Now, for screenreaders, these stats are a bit easier to get hold of, but I'm mostly interested in actual effectiveness of <code>&lt;noscript&gt;</code>. While it is a widely accepted truth that they "just work", sometimes, an alternative truth can (warning: slight overstatement) rock your world. Like when I got to know that <a href="http://css-tricks.com/navigation-in-lists-to-be-or-not-to-be/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">navigation items should not be put into lists</a>.</p>
  
  <p>This thought actually makes me curious as to whether there is any testimonial on the use of <code>&lt;noscript&gt;</code> and whether it is a useful tag in the context that we are always told ("providing alternative content for the visually impaired"). Or maybe there's some implementation paradigm that I'm not aware of that often destroys its effectiveness? Maybe there's even someone visually impaired who might confirm or refute such stories?</p>
  
  <p>note: to attribute some authority to answers, it might help to state that you are visually impaired, if applicable and if you want to of course.</p>