I sympathize with both sides of this argument. The author is correct: If you're providing a service on the web, especially a widely used one, you should make it usable for all web users to the fullest extent possible, regardless of browser.
But on the other hand... boy am I glad I switched from web dev to primarily back-end work. Building and maintaining complex software that works reliably in one environment is enough of a challenge as it is... without all the extra variables of an ever-changing landscape of browsers and devices, with varying levels of feature support, all of which you have zero control over.
IMO being a front-end dev is borderline masochistic :)
This isn't really my area of expertise so if this already exists feel free to educate me.
Would it be possible to have a generic browser that isnt controlled by any vendor, but perhaps contributed to by all of them, which could be used as a dev standard? It doesn't even have to be available to users, just devs. Vendors could still develop their browsers any way they want, but when output diverges from this kit, they would at least know it. As a dev you could use this as your test kit and know that if it works here, it works everywhere.
I could see problems with this being backwards compatible, but at the point where the major vendors sign on, all future releases would compatible (and eventually all releases as older versions are retired).
I suppose that perhaps though this is already accomplished by Chrome, but it seems less than ideal for many reasons.
I think that would in effect become just another browser developers need to test with.
Vendor browsers will miss features compared to it, and have extra features, and do some things a bit different. Developers wouldn't consider it "the dev standard" since it wouldn't be used by many people, and what matters is that your users can use what you meant them to use.
The big problem with this idea is that different browsers use different rendering engines. Not everyone uses webkit. If the test suite is built on webkit, then you can't say it'll work under Firefox or Edge, because a critical component is different.
> Would it be possible to have a generic browser that isnt controlled by any vendor, but perhaps contributed to by all of them, which could be used as a dev standard?
It's possible, but there's no financial incentive for them to do so, so it's incredibly unlikely. Open source browsers already exist, but because a company wouldn't earn money from contributing, they won't do it.
It's also unlikely that businesses will start building websites for different browsers. Chrome is currently the industry standard, and to maximize viewers while minimizing development cost, developing for Chrome will capture most of the market share.
Reminds me of the time of websites only using -webkit vendor prefixes in the CSS even though the same properties were available to other browsers. Available either as other vendor prefixes or just the standard property. It got so bad that other browsers started supporting the webkit prefixes, which defeated the purpose. Not that vendor prefixes were a good idea to begin with.
Please build IE to be compatible with standards that have been implemented for years in Firefox and Chrome.
Last I tried, IE still does not have a fully compatible CSS grid and doesn't handle HTTP 2 server push at all.
Is it because they don't have enough smart programmers to implement those things? Or they can't update their software? Even though every few weeks or months there are full updates that they push at will.
I can't believe people still haven't figured out at this point that MS is doing it deliberately, just like they have been all these years. Because every time the web becomes more powerful and compatible, it weakens MS's position.
Don't confuse "only supporting Chrome" with "not supporting every crappy browser ever made". Standards will move on so the acceptable bar for what you support will also keep changing.
Safari might have user numbers behind it but it also has a huge pile of rendering oddities and half-implemented standards. They're not keeping pace with other browsers.
You sure it’s not blocked by an overzealous content blocker? I’m never able to visit arstechnica on my phone for that reason. You can long press refresh, “reload without content blockers.”
Companies will build websites for whatever gets them the most money. If supporting FF costs more than the additional revenues from only-FF users, they will build Chrome-only sites. Really surprises me how easily people forget that companies are out there to make money.
If I build for Chrome I build for like 80%. Then I can also usually assume it works for Safari and Opera. In in most cases also perfectly well for Firefox.
If there are small design issues on a minority browser it's not bad. And more than small issues are very unusual these days anyway.
bootsz|8 years ago
But on the other hand... boy am I glad I switched from web dev to primarily back-end work. Building and maintaining complex software that works reliably in one environment is enough of a challenge as it is... without all the extra variables of an ever-changing landscape of browsers and devices, with varying levels of feature support, all of which you have zero control over.
IMO being a front-end dev is borderline masochistic :)
talmand|8 years ago
Some of us just like the challenge.
skate22|8 years ago
https://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2017/10/30/microsoft-engine...
talmand|8 years ago
fanpuns|8 years ago
Would it be possible to have a generic browser that isnt controlled by any vendor, but perhaps contributed to by all of them, which could be used as a dev standard? It doesn't even have to be available to users, just devs. Vendors could still develop their browsers any way they want, but when output diverges from this kit, they would at least know it. As a dev you could use this as your test kit and know that if it works here, it works everywhere.
I could see problems with this being backwards compatible, but at the point where the major vendors sign on, all future releases would compatible (and eventually all releases as older versions are retired).
I suppose that perhaps though this is already accomplished by Chrome, but it seems less than ideal for many reasons.
Scarblac|8 years ago
Vendor browsers will miss features compared to it, and have extra features, and do some things a bit different. Developers wouldn't consider it "the dev standard" since it wouldn't be used by many people, and what matters is that your users can use what you meant them to use.
foobarchu|8 years ago
TheAdamAndChe|8 years ago
It's possible, but there's no financial incentive for them to do so, so it's incredibly unlikely. Open source browsers already exist, but because a company wouldn't earn money from contributing, they won't do it.
It's also unlikely that businesses will start building websites for different browsers. Chrome is currently the industry standard, and to maximize viewers while minimizing development cost, developing for Chrome will capture most of the market share.
smichel17|8 years ago
isleyaardvark|8 years ago
talmand|8 years ago
ilaksh|8 years ago
Last I tried, IE still does not have a fully compatible CSS grid and doesn't handle HTTP 2 server push at all.
Is it because they don't have enough smart programmers to implement those things? Or they can't update their software? Even though every few weeks or months there are full updates that they push at will.
I can't believe people still haven't figured out at this point that MS is doing it deliberately, just like they have been all these years. Because every time the web becomes more powerful and compatible, it weakens MS's position.
ksec|8 years ago
bradknowles|8 years ago
Hmm. Maybe they should take some of their own medicine?
yesbut|8 years ago
oliwarner|8 years ago
Safari might have user numbers behind it but it also has a huge pile of rendering oddities and half-implemented standards. They're not keeping pace with other browsers.
chatmasta|8 years ago
gletard|8 years ago
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
coderdude|8 years ago
[deleted]
curtisblaine|8 years ago
jerven|8 years ago
herbst|8 years ago
If there are small design issues on a minority browser it's not bad. And more than small issues are very unusual these days anyway.