It's under 4% - for all intents and purposes a dead browser. I certainly wouldn't devote any engineering hours towards supporting it.
So the bank has to test in Firefox, they can't just put all their hope in web standards that may or may not represent reality.
When Firefox falls to a certain marketshare it makes no sense for the bank to keep testing on Firefox.
I'm also not sure what error you're expecting? If browser bugs are a serious risk like this, you should surely be able to cite a few example lawsuits from the last year or two?
If you can't make your website Firefox compliant in a month, you have some very deep design issues. Firefox compliance is so trivial that most websites achieve it without even trying, because Firefox follows basically the same standards Chrome does.
The loss from not supporting Firefox (which I agree, is probably more than the savings) will show up on somebody else's balance sheet. IT saves a bit of money by siphoning indirectly out of Customer Retention, and the details get lost in the noise. It's the curse of large organizations.
I understand an argument against continuing to test, even though I find it insufficient, but liability doesn’t make sense here.
> > So the bank has to test in Firefox, they can't just put all their hope in web standards that may or may not represent reality.
Thanks to the open nature of the web, i can modify the request/response, JS that executes, etc right in the browser. So for your argument to be valid, the bank would literally have to fully trust client side directives and do next to zero validation of the users input. Even banks aren’t that stupid…
And if you know of a bank doing that, please share! I’d love to print myself some free money!
Security issues somewhat withstanding here, but even that argument is bullshit because Chromium/Chrome has just as many bad security bugs as FF, sometimes even more and/or worse.
So no, this is bullshit. The reason they’re doing this is so they can reduce development costs while more likely than not engaging in surreptitious activity surveillance, given FF has some of the strongest protections against that crap that have ever existed. Coupled with recent-ish reports that credit bureaus want to let your browsing data impact your credit score, they’ve already got several big fish on the line willing to buy. And with little to no isolation for client side storage per domain in most of those browsers, i can see no other incentive for them to do this.
(This is what I do. No problems so far…)
I really have no sympathy for a $100/h web developer that has no time to check with Firefox every once in a while that their Chromeism works over there as well. It's not like Firefox is a buggy browser that requires tons of work.
It's pure laziness.
Mozilla is rebranding itself into a “Social Justice For Tech” marketing firm.
There are two significant platforms left Chromium and WebKit. I hope that isn’t the future, but browser dominance is such an obscure, indirect problem to the industry that no company would bother touching it.
Chromium can be extended in many ways. V8 can be used anywhere and is what spawned node and the idea of JavaScript server and client side.
Firefox is more like a product that's source available than an open source project made to benefit the ecosystem.
They would do better to finally pony up, reskin chromium, and stop playing catch up.
Additionally, the market FF serves this days is educated, rich and ahead of the curve. Not a market you necessarily want to ignore.
That’s some weird projection that made me laugh. I used to use firefox everyday until it became too annoying and I moved on to another browser and never looked back. Firefox used to be great but those days are long gone.
It can vary by the field or nature of the site, of course.