> It also impedes accessibility-related plugins trying to extract the content and present it to the user in whatever way is compatible to their needs.
I'm not sure I agree that this is relevant advice today. Screen readers and other assistive technology fully support dynamic content in web pages, and have for years.
Yes, it's good for sites to provide content without JavaScript where possible. But don't make the mistake of conflating the "without JavaScript" version with the accessible version.
Readers for the blind not the only form of assistive technologies, and unnecessary JS usage where JS is not necessary makes it hard to develop new ones.
There is a huge spectrum of needs in-between, that LLMs will help fulfill. For example it can be even as simple as needing paraphrasing of each section at the top, removing triggering textual content, translating fancy English to simple English, answering voice questions about the text like "how many tablespoons of olive oil", etc.
These are all assistive technologies that would highly benefit from having static text be static.
I'm not sure I agree that this is relevant advice today. Screen readers and other assistive technology fully support dynamic content in web pages, and have for years.
Yes, it's good for sites to provide content without JavaScript where possible. But don't make the mistake of conflating the "without JavaScript" version with the accessible version.