yes, for a project optimizing workflow a static page would be fitting, but with pngs or webp instead of gifs :-) appearently lossless webp steals pngs crown now that iOS and MacOS support it and the computational costs on high compression are less:

https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/webp-flif-comparison.html

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/gallery2

That's okay if you don't mind downloading a 50MB webpage. Otherwise gifs should be avoided at all costs.

The issue of the gifs was actually discussed on discord. IIRC it was because the gifs would be to big in some cases.

That's a poor excuse given that a) mp4 support is pretty good these days and b) CSS already has responsive loading of assets. It's purely that to a man with a JS framework everything looks like a dynamic site. I highly recommend running Noscript to see how much of the Internet is broken because of this kind of nonsense.

Running Noscript doesn't show you how much of the internet is broken but instead is you purposefully breaking the internet for yourself.

Agreed. Web standards exist between the server and client. If you break the standard (eg. by disabling JS), then it's your responsibility when things stop working.

It's great that you have the freedom to do so, but you have no right to claim the website is "broken" as a result.

You don't need Javascript for static content.

And dynamic content isn't broken content. Choosing to only view static content is a personal preference.