You're running an extension that purposely disables what makes the majority of the web work. Unless you disable it, you can't really complain about sites not working correctly for you.
HTML is what makes the majority of the web work, with additional functionality (optionally) provided by scripts. When I see a blank page I wouldn't call that 'not working correctly' I would call it 'not working at all'.
Maybe we agree to disagree now, and you go on blindly trusting all websites to execute random code on your machine. I am perfectly content to have new websites look a little funny the first time I visit.
"HTML is what makes the majority of the web work" - Yes, ten years ago.
The modern internet is javascript. The code is executing in a secure sandbox. If you can get it to do something random on your machine make sure to let Google know, they'll send you a pretty big check.
It's not just doing something funny with the machines, it's also doing funny stuff with other websites. Plenty of websites are still vulnerable to XSS and CSRF.
Having used noscript for a while, I've gotten into the habit of letting it block everything at first and only allowing what seems necessary for that site.
I'm perfectly okay with the 'broken until enabled' model... I used to use "Request Policy" in Firefox - the most granular control of script and XSS accesses I've ever seen. Miss it in Chrome.
This is a red herring. The overwhelming majority of screen readers support javascript front ends. As in, over 98% of people who use screenreaders use one that supports javascript.
