You're basing your assumptions on a broken premise. You're clearly not browsing normally, but rather are crippling your browser in some way, after which you decide to bash whatever you can, without clearly identifying your methods.

As I mentioned earlier it's at the developer's discretion as to whether they want to enable JS degradation or not. Sometimes when an application is sufficiently complex a developer may choose not to, or not have certain actions map to links.

You shouldn't base your assumptions on one implementation, but rather, read what the technology claims to do and then try it so you can actually see, rather than just slash and burn.

It's people like you that really make me wonder whether we should even continue down the standards based route, or continue to support text-based browsers, as mentioned in our latest blog posts http://dev.noloh.com/#/blog/, or http://dev.noloh.com/?/blog/ for you. Not a single client or user has ever asked for such features, but we always get complaints from the die-hards. So we work and implement it, to what effect? Next you'll complain that some app that uses NOLOH doesn't do XYZ. There's nothing we can do about that, we can't force users to upgrade, or implement a feature, we can only offer it.

Clearly it doesn't matter what we do, or how compatible we try to be, you won't care, won't listen, and won't actually try it.