JavaScript

JavaScript handles interactivity — the mobile menu toggle, the expanding search field, the FAQ accordions. Everything else (layout, content, styling) works without it, which is a deliberate choice, not a limitation.

Less JavaScript means a faster, more resilient site: fewer things that can break, less to download, and pages that still work even if a script fails to load. JavaScript gets used where it earns its place, not by default.

When a project genuinely needs a rich, app-like interface, yes. For a typical business site, that overhead usually isn’t worth it — plain JavaScript accomplishes the same interactivity with a fraction of the code to load and maintain.

It can — content that only appears after JavaScript runs is sometimes missed or delayed by search engines and AI crawlers. Server-rendered content (what this site does) sidesteps that risk entirely.

Not on a well-built site. Content, navigation, and forms should all work with JavaScript disabled or slow to load; JavaScript should enhance the experience, not gate it.

Every script has to be downloaded and run before it can do anything, so more JavaScript generally means a slower first impression. Minimal, purposeful JavaScript is one of the more effective ways to keep a site feeling fast.

Yes — that’s exactly the kind of thing it’s good for: instant feedback, smooth interactions, and small UI behaviors that would feel clunky with a full page reload.

Like any code, poorly written or third-party JavaScript can introduce risk. Keeping it minimal and self-hosted (rather than pulling in a pile of external scripts) significantly reduces that surface area.

Possibly, if it grows into something genuinely app-like. Most business sites never reach that point, and adding framework overhead before it’s needed just makes the site slower for no real benefit.

No — modern vanilla JavaScript can do everything jQuery historically simplified, without the extra library weight. It’s a legacy dependency this build deliberately avoids.