A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers
#2Never mind IE11. http://motherfuckingwebsite.com still works on IE6, and why shouldn't it? It's plain HTML with no CSS or JS.
There is no reason why any web document should not still be readable in Lynx, Mosaic, or even WorldWideWeb.
Web applications are a bit more complicated, but that complication is self-inflicted. We developers choose to to hijack users' devices for work that should be done on the server in the name of providing a better user experience, and we make our work harder in the process.
Supporting old browsers isn't that hard. Build a solid foundation of HTML, HTTP GET, and HTTP POST, even if it means doing full page refreshes. You can always layer your AJAX calls and such on top. It's called "progressive enhancement", remember?
Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers
#3Never mind IE11. http://motherfuckingwebsite.com still works on IE6, and why shouldn't it? It's plain HTML with no CSS or JS. There is no reason why any web document should not still be readable in Lynx, Mosaic, or even WorldWideWeb. Web applications are a bit more complicated, but that complication is self-inflicted. We developers choose to to hijack users' devices for work that should be done on the server in the n…
That website doesn't do anything.
Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers
#4Never mind IE11. http://motherfuckingwebsite.com still works on IE6, and why shouldn't it? It's plain HTML with no CSS or JS. There is no reason why any web document should not still be readable in Lynx, Mosaic, or even WorldWideWeb. Web applications are a bit more complicated, but that complication is self-inflicted. We developers choose to to hijack users' devices for work that should be done on the server in the n…
That website doesn't do anything.
It's a document, not an app. What were you expecting?
Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers
#5Never mind IE11. http://motherfuckingwebsite.com still works on IE6, and why shouldn't it? It's plain HTML with no CSS or JS. There is no reason why any web document should not still be readable in Lynx, Mosaic, or even WorldWideWeb. Web applications are a bit more complicated, but that complication is self-inflicted. We developers choose to to hijack users' devices for work that should be done on the server in the n…
Web applications are a bit more complicated, but that complication is self-inflicted. We developers choose to to hijack users' devices for work that should be done on the server in the name of providing a better user experience, and we make our work harder in the process.
I think you are absolutely right with "self-inflicted" --- it brings to mind the frequent discussions here about Slack and their web-based client using hundreds of MB to gigabytes of memory for what is essentially "IRC with some images". Not too long ago they "stopped supporting" older browsers, which was basically a kick in the face to everyone for whom it was working perfectly fine before.
I remember using "webchats" in the late 90s/early 2000s with IE6 (or could be 5/5.5, not sure) on machines with probably 1/100th the processing power and memory of ones today, and they worked perfectly well; complete with things like animated emoticons (they weren't called "emoji" yet) and GIFs that didn't even lag the system unlike what happens today, and that was on a single-core CPU!
A possibly fun project is to create a Slack clone that works with that resource constraint, and uses their API; they have a WebSocket interface which older browsers are obviously not capable of using, but I believe there's a classic AJAX API too.
Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers
#6Never mind IE11. http://motherfuckingwebsite.com still works on IE6, and why shouldn't it? It's plain HTML with no CSS or JS. There is no reason why any web document should not still be readable in Lynx, Mosaic, or even WorldWideWeb. Web applications are a bit more complicated, but that complication is self-inflicted. We developers choose to to hijack users' devices for work that should be done on the server in the n…
That website doesn't do anything.
It doesn't need to. The "everything must be a web app" mindset is completely unnecessary and actively harmful to accessibility. I've seen far too many "redesigns" turn a site of static pages or even forms into a horribly slow and buggy limited-browser-support SPA that excludes access for no real reason.
Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers
#7As with all things it's a cost benefit analysis. It costs money to support old browsers and a lot of money doesn't come from them do do the math.
I was trying to buy movie tickets online the other day.I tried Firefox then Firefox without ad blockers, then ie, then edge, then chrome on two different desk top machines.
Then my gf bought them on her phone browser.
Thanks mobile first development. How much money must you be costing your adherents?
Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers
#8Never mind IE11. http://motherfuckingwebsite.com still works on IE6, and why shouldn't it? It's plain HTML with no CSS or JS. There is no reason why any web document should not still be readable in Lynx, Mosaic, or even WorldWideWeb. Web applications are a bit more complicated, but that complication is self-inflicted. We developers choose to to hijack users' devices for work that should be done on the server in the n…
Web applications are a bit more complicated, but that complication is self-inflicted. We developers choose to to hijack users' devices for work that should be done on the server in the name of providing a better user experience, and we make our work harder in the process. I think you are absolutely right with "self-inflicted" --- it brings to mind the frequent discussions here about Slack and their web-based client u…
Use a Matrix bridge if you really need Slack, and pick one of the web-based Matrix clients, or build your own. Some are extremely lightweight.
Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers
#9As with all things it's a cost benefit analysis. It costs money to support old browsers and a lot of money doesn't come from them do do the math. I was trying to buy movie tickets online the other day.I tried Firefox then Firefox without ad blockers, then ie, then edge, then chrome on two different desk top machines. Then my gf bought them on her phone browser. Thanks mobile first development. How much money must you…
It costs money to support old browsers
One of the arguments the article makes is that it doesn't --- thanks to the backwards-compatible nature of the Web, anything that works on an older browser is likely to continue working on the newer one.
Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers
#10I think that the best reason for not supporting old browsers is that most developers dislike it enough that it's not worth the drop in moral.