Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers

ovl.design

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers

#11

Post by denkmoon »

userbinator wrote: post #9
throwaway35784 wrote: post #7

As 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.

So I have to design and build for the older browser then hope that the newer browser handles it properly, whilst also constraining myself from using any newer functionality?

That seems backwards.

Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers

#12

Post by ilrwbwrkhv »

Porthos9K wrote: post #2

Never 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…

i like how the mfwebsite loads a google analytics tag at the end which is larger than the actual website. lol.

Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers

#13

Post by denkmoon »

jpswade wrote: post #3
Porthos9K wrote: post #2

Never 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 delivers information. Arguably more effectively than most websites I visit for information.

Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers

#14

Post by alistairSH »

Porthos9K wrote: post #2

Never 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…

Oddly enough, this page doesn’t appear to scale properly on Safari on iPadOS. It’s too wide, requiring horizontal scrolling. Requesting the desktop version works. I haven’t tried any debugging, so don’t know why.

Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers

#16

Post by walshemj »

throwaway35784 wrote: post #7

As 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…

Ah the mystery that is cinema websites - they always seem to be so bad. VUE's website in the uk is a complete disaster.

Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers

#17

Post by imglorp »

Porthos9K wrote: post #2

Never 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…

Well, it's got js now.
Although I don't see why in this case. Owner can grep/wc the server logs to get a hit count.

Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers

#18

Post by denkmoon »

ummonk wrote: post #15
denkmoon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It delivers information. Arguably more effectively than most websites I visit for information.

It seems to be delivering almost zero information.

The information delivered is the author's philosophy on website design and implementation complexity.

I can easily tell that the author does not approve of overly complex websites, and thinks they lead to poor experiences for the developer and user.

Contrast this with a website for some hot new web 3.0 buzzthing, where "what is this thing" is not answered in lieu of presenting a shitload of "why we/this thing is so great". An example of this is npmjs.com. Nowhere does it actually state "this is a package manager for javascript", if you didn't already know it.

Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers

#19

Post by userbinator »

denkmoon wrote: post #18
ummonk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be delivering almost zero information.

The information delivered is the author's philosophy on website design and implementation complexity. I can easily tell that the author does not approve of overly complex websites, and thinks they lead to poor experiences for the developer and user. Contrast this with a website for some hot new web 3.0 buzzthing, where "what is this thing" is not answered in lieu of presenting a shitload of "why we/this thing is so g…

To its credit, at least npmjs.com is still readable without JS. However, it is lacking in terms of what it's about, and reminds me of GE.com - the latter maybe somewhat excusable because GE makes so many different things, but I don't think NPM is quite so large...

Re: A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers

#20

Post by jpswade »

Porthos9K wrote: post #4
jpswade wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That website doesn't do anything.

It's a document, not an app. What were you expecting?

Browsers aren't about just reading documents, they are about interacting with the web. That's why there's such a good argument for upgrading browsers.
Post reply on HN