Their problem. They are not entitled to make it other people's problem.
Of course accessibility is important - ie screen reader compatibility.
A typical testing matrix in the US would be
- Safari for iOS
- Chrome for desktop and Android
- maybe Safari for desktop or you just tell Mac users to use Chrome
- Firefox if you have the time. But if not, no big deal.
We are definitely not going to test for a highly customized Firefox on Linux running over a VPN.
The issues I have are website pretending to be apps and apps that are SPAs for no reasons.
You can do so when your bottom line is healthy. Otherwise you go out of business. That’s business 101.
And before you say "that's their choice," you're the one who is breaking the functionality. Nothing about using a VPN or linux or Firefox creates any problem for TCP/IP or https.
However, while the site creator does have to meet the disabled halfway, the disabled person is responsible for having whatever type of equipment they need to make it work - ie screenreaders
Just do your job right. Not saying you should test some unique Firefox config but at least the default version is to be tested.
Hell, I've seen people here indicating that they just tell desktop Mac users to "install Chrome". Such carelessness is bad for business. Web development sure could raise its bar.
For the longest, Amazon Connect’s - AWS hosted call center software - call flow builder only worked with Chrome.
Even for B2C users, using Chrome is not a deal breaker. If they are okay with using shitty Electron apps, they will be okay with using Chrome for Mac.
Everything else - no.
But if I am using standards and they have an ad blocker that blocks some of the functioning of my site, am I also required to test my site against that?
I'd include _everything_ important in the "yes" category. If I cannot access the customer panel to update settings or notify them of a bug that is affecting me because I'm using Firefox ("works for 95% of users"), they're just not keeping up their end of the contract.
Remember, 95% excludes everything but chromium/webkit-engines.
Every company decides which customers are worth going after.
Might still be a business decision, but it's like saying "we'll drop any emails that indicate a mail client other than apple mail/gmail/outlook".
It's not surprising that the strongest protections always happen on the unsubscribe links, but not on the subscribe-links. That just needs to be fined out of existence, just like "you can order with one click, but you need 50 clicks and a three-hour-conversation to cancel".
Just like other cases, I won’t accept that it’s “just lazy” on the part of big tech companies. They clearly know how to adjust their internal view/reputation of a domain once it starts being used for “misbehaviour” and spam such that they start blocking it.
Thus they could clearly start by not doing so-and, maybe, they’re “really touchy” about domains with no initial “internal score” such that if a new domain pops up and starts spamming people they catch it fast. Its not necessary to break open Internet protocols, though, unless they want the breakage.
One side of the argument is that Cloudflare places an undue burden. The other side of the argument is that without the CF protections, the service provider doesn't even have reason to believe the request is coming from a human being the law protects.
Where. It’s global internet we communicate via.