21–26 of 26 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This website doesn't do anything but others do. Browsers have to support both.
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.
It's an obvious fact to anyone who does front end web development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.