These are idiotic, and should all be done on the back-end -- either by your favorite image program before you upload your image, or by some server-side code -- and they add nothing of value to the website.
By contrast, check out the JS effects integrated into a site I did for a client: http://davidmckayphotography.com/ (I didn't do the site design or layout, just the photo gallery/JS bits).
I agree. I see no need to waste bandwidth and page size with an external library to add an image curl. If I wanted that I would add it using my favorite image editing program.
The JavaScript image processing libraries he mention also make the image grainy. I'm really not impressed.
If there is one possibly "essential" javascript effect it would be the spinning ajax indicator or a progress indicator for uploads and other time intensive operations.
None of the "effects" mentioned by the author are anywhere near "essential."
I always thought unobtrusive javascript refers to how it is written. For example, using the inline onClick attribute would be considered obtrusive, because it is in the HTML. On the other hand, unobtrusive javascript would assign a function to some control when the window loads, effectively making the HTML pure.
You're both right. By separating the Javascript from the HTML, you make it easier for the site to degrade gracefully. (Though you still have to design specifically for graceful degradation if you're serious about it)
