Hacker News Reader

Comment by anal_reactor | Hacker News Reader

From business perspective it makes a lot of sense to just drop that bottom 5%. Actually, many businesses support Chrome only, they don't even support Firefox.

Technological counterargument though is that you should allow people to tinker and do weird shit. Once upon a time tech wasn't about maximizing stock value, it was about getting Russian game crack to work, and making Lora's boobs bigger. Allowing weird shit is a way to respect the roots of modern tech, and allow hobbyists to tinker.

View on HN

Thanks for confirming. I don't know that it has to be framed as a "business perspective" though. I'm a solo dev for a non-profit project, so ignoring the 5% is just a matter of pragmatism.

I most defintiely do not care about tinkerers, and in fact would generally classify them as something akin to attackers. I just want to allow as many people to use the app as possible, while keeping things simple and secure.

For a lot of businesses, 5% of revenue is a lot more than the cost of supporting older browsers

What shifts the discussion a bit is that many of the bottom 5% aren't lost customers. If your website doesn't work on my minority browser, smart TV or PS Vita I might be willing to just try it in Chrome instead

Empathy and accessibility. Does it make sense to have a ramp in front of your shop for < 5% customers?

My question, though, is who are the 5% of users in this case who are using some arcane browsers? Surely that's largely a choice, physical disabilities are not.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to say to those folks "were evidently not using the same web"

It's not comparable to a physical disability byt gatekeeping the people who just don't want to be tracked all day by Google doesn't sounds right to me though.

There's plenty of other chromium browsers - Vivaldi seems to do a good job in this regard.

Also, Firefox exists, though they don't seem to care about privacy much anymore either.

And, of course, safari, which is terrible in most regards

> There's plenty of other chromium browsers - Vivaldi seems to do a good job in this regard.

Being chromium derivatives, they don't really have a say in what's included in “their” browser though.

> Also, Firefox exists

Well, you disregarded is as “arcane browser” right above.

In what way did I call Firefox arcane? Firefox generally has better support for web features than safari.

It has less than 5% market share left…

it is included in Baseline and passes more tests than safari, so i would hardly call it arcane

Yet people treat it as such and drop support. Remember this is the comment you argued in favor above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590086

> From business perspective it makes a lot of sense to just drop that bottom 5%. Actually, many businesses support Chrome only, they don't even support Firefox.

Grandma or poor folk with their old device may not be "largely a choice"

Don't major browsers essentially auto update? And to the extent that a device is so old that it can't support newer versions, surely it must be VERY old and perhaps is somewhat likely to be replaced sooner than later.

I think I'll probably carry on with not supporting browsers that don't have Sec-Fetch-Site. The alternative, Csrf tokens, actually causes me immense issues (they make caching very difficult, if not impossible).

(and I say all of this as someone who is specifically building something for the poorest folks. I'm extremely aware of and empathetic to their situation).

It still depends on the target audience. Some websites or apps are single-page applications (SPAs), can older devices handle that? For example, my mum’s Android phone was too slow to even load a page.

Secondly, users should upgrade their devices to stay safe online, since vulnerabile people are often scammed or tricked into downloading apps that contain malware.

So we should not cater to outdated browsers when they could pose a risk.

Yeah, I'm very amenable to this take. WordPress, for example, is infamous for having extreme backwards compatibility. But that often results in many sites being on ancient versions of php (and surely other tech as well). I'm of the opinion that they should all be running currently-supported versions of php and everything else. If you can't use my plugin because your server is shit, so be it.

Should we build SPA given it's poorly accessible and provide bad performance?

Tried old school SSR? Even on modern devices, it's waaaayy faster and much more enjoyable than JavaScript bloated "modern" website.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com