As if they needed to check for ""compatibility"" at all - just let the users try their makeshift coded-in-a-weekend browsers, or their 2008 version of IE.
The better question is why some websites even bother checking for the browser when the vast majority of people uses mainstream options that follow web standards and self-update.
Checking the browser version kind of made sense 15 years ago when updating the browser depended on the user's awareness and willingness of doing so, and the lack of standards across browsers was blatant. Nowadays that's pretty much useless. The maximum these sites should be doing is displaying a banner letting the user know their browser might be incompatible (because it's likely not in a way that prevents usage), then fuck off.
I had a client once who used to be obsessed with this. By his logic, if a potential customer visited the website and had a bad experience because the site didn't work properly in their browser, they'd think the company was unprofessional and wouldn't come into the store and we'd lose them as a customer forever. Analytics showed that 99+% of people would visit in one of the big three, and he wouldn't pay for someone to test the site on the less popular browsers, instead he insisted on fingerprinting logic that broke all the time and probably caused more bounces than any possible rendering quirks from niche mobile browsers would have caused
It's ridiculous some people even consider blocking a browser completely and having a near 100% chance of turning away the customer that uses it instead of just letting the user browse and have a significant chance of nothing bad happening.
People are not going to change browsers to visit this website unless they absolutely have to - in which case they'll hate this company for it.
Checking the browser almost never makes sense these days.
Sites should be using feature detection instead. Rather than checking the browser version, instead check if the browser supports the features they require.
It's more practical though, from a more general UX perspective where the U is often a non technical person. If you throw a "ur browser doesn't support webserial(or whatever)" message up on the screen, you're just gonna confuse tons of users who won't even know what the hell you're talking about. Easier (for everyone) to tell them to just use what you know works.
The message doesn't have to be technical and can still mention browsers - just say "your browser isn't compatible with this site. Try updating it or switch to Chrome or Edge". The idea is just that if someone with a non-Chrome and non-Edge browser tries to load the page and it supports the feature, they won't see the message.
The problem is that there are still features missing from certain browsers. For example, Mozilla does not like restrictive licenses, which is why many media codecs are not available in Firefox. Google does not care, pays the fees and provides the media codecs for free.
As soon as we get rid of shit like h265 and switch to av1, the world will be a better (and more open) place where everyone can use any browser.
Kinda agree, but from a software developer perspective, there is no reason to maintain multiple code bases or exceptions just because 2% of the users might profit from it.
The same thing happened in the past, when everyone had to have special CSS exceptions for IE6. But in that case it was worth it, as the marked share of IE6 was huge.
That‘s the problem. If you show a damaged or non working website, the user assumes it is a problem of the website, then thinking negatively about it.
Unfortunately the world is not as easy as you see it :)
Companies like chrome because it’s the most used browser. So if they develop for it, and only for it without caring of compatibility on others, then it’s cheaper. And since they don’t want you to use another browser and complain that their site is broken, the just block you.
Which is kind of dumb, because if you target Firefox you are writing to a standards compliant browser that means your code should work on all other browsers. Chrome came when IE still owned the internet and their goal was to offer a faster browser that still worked, so now chrome has a bunch of hacks coded into it.
Devs don't always get a lot of choice when the upper management thinks chrome is better
The devs can tell management they'll make it work on Chrome while really making it work cross-browser. It's not too hard to make a site cross-browser these days, except for Safari sometimes having weird bugs.
Pfft, who would do that? As a Firefox user myself I never would. Carve out a bit of time on the down-low to enhance cross-browser support on a website after management shortsightedly told me to just block anything other than Chrome? No no no! Not me!
Of course as others here (including you) have pointed out, it's much less of an issue these days. Though it does still happen, it's nowhere near as bad as the IE days (that browser can burn in hell for all eternity!).
Well chrome should, yes. But they don't.
Then some JavaScript framework developers think "well this non-standard feature is neat, let's use that everywhere" and then companies who use their framework (or a framwork dependent on it) can't support all browsers.
It's a multilayered problem (as always) with lots of individually decisions that make sense, but don't work out in the end (as always).
I think the most annoying thing here is the decision to blanket ban other browsers. Why not just have a little drop-down bar at the top that says 'You may encounter issues, we recommend browsing this site with Google Chrome', instead of completely blocking access? The cynic in me suspects it's linked to advertising.
If one changes the user agent in Firefox so that it announces itself as Chrome, most of these sites work just fine. Adobe Express is the last example I tried.
Doesn't have to be, some features are only available in certain browsers (usually Chromium). For example AFAIK Chromium is the only browser that allows you to connect in the browser to Bluetooth devices, its the only browser that can access for example a phone's NFC chip or that can interact with USB devices.
That’s my point. Example, meet Sarah. Sarah goes to www.megacorp.com to pair her new MegaDevice via NFC. She gets to the pairing page and there’s only a small banner that tells her her browser may not work. She doesn’t see it and starts the syncing. It fails repeatedly. Her first thought will be “O.. Mygod! mergacorp’s website is like, so. Broken!”
Now example B: Sarah goes to the website and sees “WRONG BROWSER, use chrome instead” on the screen in big. Now Sarah thinks “Oh, I’m stupid, it’s my bad, I should use Chrome instead instead of Firefox. Firefox is the worst”.
Then end.
Eco system, email, google account, all bookmarks saved between devices. Where as Firefox you'll need to actively make an account. Chrome also come pre installed on some systems, ive also seen that many installers for random software will offer to install chrome.
Its all subtle manipulation that leads to people using chrome because everyone uses chrome.
Personally I use Firefox based browsers. I font want to support google.
If it truly is only an hour of someone's time, then I'd much rather they made that insignificant amount less profit, but did the work to make our experience better.
I found a bug once in our content that only affected Firefox. Old versions of articulate whouldnt start properly. Not somthing I could fix on my own as i meeded anyoher department. I brought it to the attention of the managers. They didn't want to fox it as apprently Google analytics showed only .4% of our user base was using Firefox. I manged to convince them its part of our user commitment to ensure that we work consistently across all browsers, but it was a pain.
That's the main issue of using analytics and telemetry on something that's used by power users: most of them disable/block them, so the real reported usage is much lower
Exactly. When the planes come back from battle, you put armor on all the places where the bullet holes aren't, because that's where the planes that didn't make it back were shot.
On the desktop, Firefox has about 6% marketshare, and Edge, the Windows default, about 11%.
On mobile, however, Firefox is at 0.5%, and Edge at 0.3%.
A lot of people only browse the Web on a mobile platform. And the ones using those tend to use the default browser bundled with their phone; if what they have out-of-box works, they're not going to install anything else. Apple bundles Safari, and Google bundles Chrome, so that's what gets used.
That's why I started setting Firefox as the default browser on my family's phones. They were too annoyed by ads and almost got scammed once. With Firefox and uBlock Origin it's like magic for them. Plus they don't visit any non-mainstream websites so they'll never encounter such a screen.
A small step to a better web-browsing experience for all of us.
Something didn't work on Firefox and the dev didn't get permission to work out how to fix it as it was uneconomical compared with just disabling firefox
I expect that they had something break on it and decided that it wasn't worth the time spent fixing it, so they just blocked it so more users didn't run into it. A simple message may be annoying to them, but at least they have a straightforward workaround then.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I use Firefox on both mobile and desktop, but it's not too hard to see why they'd do a cost/benefit analysis like that. No one company is in the business of trying to do antitrust work, to avoid a browser monopoly, and that'd be the reason why it'd be important to have competing browsers.
Important to note as well that both Edge and Opera along with Chrome (and many other niche browsers) are based on Chromium, giving them an even bigger spread of users that are using the same browser from a compatability standpoint.
I would sooner blame the management, that would even think of excluding "untested" or "unsupported" browsers, like some kind of technofacist dictator, instead of choosing a helpful "if you're having problems with our shit site, use chrome" message... or even literally doing nothing... everything is broken these days, and a half-functional site is better than an intentionally-broken one.
The tools and knowledge exist to make building standards compliant web applications just as easy, if not easier, than chrome-only web applications. It's not the responsibility of management to use those tools or acquire that knowledge.
Unless you're using some fancy WebGPU shit. I don't think we're talking about some fancy WebGPU shit.
When I say that Edge is equivalent to Chrome, I don't mean that Edge is exactly Chrome It's not what I said and it's not what I meant. I mean that for all intents and purposes you can use edge for anything you want to use Chrome for. Major differentiation is that you're giving all of your data to Microsoft in lieu of Google. And you could look at all the other chromium base browsers and say yeah you could do the same thing with those but in this case we have a business user. There's businesses are probably already running Microsoft networks. They might very well already have Microsoft SSO. Edge is going to have all kinds of great tie-ins to active directory policy. So secops/it is going to try to force you to use Edge, instead of say Firefox with a barely have any control over or maybe brave where you're going to try TOR or IPFS and just basically be a stain on their HIDS board.
In my experience of using the traffic inspection tool fiddler: for https sites you have to have it add its own self signed cert to be able to see traffic.
Firefox, out of the box, detects it immediately and warns you of a security issue, not letting you do anything.
Chrome, and chromium based browsers,
don't even notice it and happily let you do what needs to be done.
I've had the experience of a few sites not working recently in Firefox, one of them explicitly stated an ad server was blocked because of xss settings and refused to load. Chrome didn't care.
I’ve been at companies that did that too, historically, but it seems like a solved problem. My current company does UI testing only through headless browsers and it seems to work
I absolutely hate this. Ordered something last night that refused to work on Firefox or Firefox based browsers. Switched to my emergency Fulguris and checkout worked like police working for a white rich man.
These terms are absolutely meaningless. Browsers like all Chromium forks and Firefox add new CSS, HTML and JS features on a almost monthly basis. Safari then usually is takes a year more to implement them. And for the past few years Chrome has usually been adding new stuff the fastest, then Firefox a bit later and then Apple adds them after a year, but only if they don't threaten the native Apps on iOS because of AppStore money.
What really chaps my ass is when they don't bother to tell you. It always happens when I'm filling out a form and find out that the submit button just doesn't do anything. Then I have to go back through chrome just to fill out the same form a second time.
Worst part is that I get this with the government website in the UK. For me it was a sub menu which was supposed to appear when a certain option was clicked. It wouldn't display the sub menu in Firefox. Had to redo the damn thing in Edge...
I just call places like that and tell the service rep the website didn't work. They do it for me on their end usually and it costs the company more money for the trouble.
The really irritating part is that tools like Playwright let you end-to-end test your product across the big three (Chromium, Firefox and Webkit). Which, most of the time, means these products that specify "Chrome only" simply aren't E2E testing with modern tools.
Let’s be honest, probably no (automated) pipelines involved in the whole project. Bonus points for SSH’ing into the production server and manually making edits there.
Don't change it browser-wide because stats trackers will think that Firefox's market share is going down. Use a user agent switching extension and change it only for the sites that need it.
Because Google Chrome setups a good framework from the moment you open it to track, collect data, basically free market your internet life. Companies like to work the less possible using the least money, if Google already gives them all that setup for a fee then it's more profitable than having to pay programmers to track you in other browsers.
So they deliberately are saying to your face: "I only let you use my stuff if you enter as naked as possible". They are not even shy about it.
Someone like this only deserves a spit in the face and a domain ban. Basically. They can fuck off.
Notes: Most of what I said is not exactly all the true. Most companies just reuse webpage code that it's only tested form chromium, so they only let you use that. Because they are lazy AF, they don't care about customers, they only care about money.
Chrome implements features that aren't standards track into their browser, and lazy/oblivious devs use these features to build their products - only to realize wayyy too late it won't work in Safari/Firefox because it uses APIs that are chrome only
But does it mean the 15% is non-standard or just not implemented at all? If it's not implemented then all of the implementation is 100% standard compliant and if everyone stopped relying on the 15% part then developing for Firefox should make it compatible for rest of the browsers.
Nope. Afaik, there is still no legal precedent set that you must make your publicly available website usable on more than one browser suite. Which is ludicrous, because Google has quietly been trying to make Chrome the only option.
I'd rather they not give a damn what browser you use as long as it complies with current web standards. That's kinda the whole point of there being open standards.
As if they needed to check for ""compatibility"" at all - just let the users try their makeshift coded-in-a-weekend browsers, or their 2008 version of IE.
The better question is why some websites even bother checking for the browser when the vast majority of people uses mainstream options that follow web standards and self-update.
Checking the browser version kind of made sense 15 years ago when updating the browser depended on the user's awareness and willingness of doing so, and the lack of standards across browsers was blatant. Nowadays that's pretty much useless. The maximum these sites should be doing is displaying a banner letting the user know their browser might be incompatible (because it's likely not in a way that prevents usage), then fuck off.
I had a client once who used to be obsessed with this. By his logic, if a potential customer visited the website and had a bad experience because the site didn't work properly in their browser, they'd think the company was unprofessional and wouldn't come into the store and we'd lose them as a customer forever. Analytics showed that 99+% of people would visit in one of the big three, and he wouldn't pay for someone to test the site on the less popular browsers, instead he insisted on fingerprinting logic that broke all the time and probably caused more bounces than any possible rendering quirks from niche mobile browsers would have caused
It's ridiculous some people even consider blocking a browser completely and having a near 100% chance of turning away the customer that uses it instead of just letting the user browse and have a significant chance of nothing bad happening.
People are not going to change browsers to visit this website unless they absolutely have to - in which case they'll hate this company for it.
Oh my god, you get it. Thank you for your continued existence. Keep going!
Checking the browser almost never makes sense these days.
Sites should be using feature detection instead. Rather than checking the browser version, instead check if the browser supports the features they require.
It's more practical though, from a more general UX perspective where the U is often a non technical person. If you throw a "ur browser doesn't support webserial(or whatever)" message up on the screen, you're just gonna confuse tons of users who won't even know what the hell you're talking about. Easier (for everyone) to tell them to just use what you know works.
The message doesn't have to be technical and can still mention browsers - just say "your browser isn't compatible with this site. Try updating it or switch to Chrome or Edge". The idea is just that if someone with a non-Chrome and non-Edge browser tries to load the page and it supports the feature, they won't see the message.
Time for OP to install a User Agent Switcher plugin
Yep, that's always worth a try
The problem is that there are still features missing from certain browsers. For example, Mozilla does not like restrictive licenses, which is why many media codecs are not available in Firefox. Google does not care, pays the fees and provides the media codecs for free. As soon as we get rid of shit like h265 and switch to av1, the world will be a better (and more open) place where everyone can use any browser.
Telling you that is the job of the browser, not of the webpage. Job of the webpage is, to provide a fallback if feature is not avalaible.
Kinda agree, but from a software developer perspective, there is no reason to maintain multiple code bases or exceptions just because 2% of the users might profit from it. The same thing happened in the past, when everyone had to have special CSS exceptions for IE6. But in that case it was worth it, as the marked share of IE6 was huge.
Yeah, but for media it's as easy as specyfying a second format in html.
Yeah, then just try to load the website.
If something fails, blame the user. But don't just block them based solely on brand of browser.
That‘s the problem. If you show a damaged or non working website, the user assumes it is a problem of the website, then thinking negatively about it. Unfortunately the world is not as easy as you see it :)
"We're a very inaccessible and hostile webpage. Turn back now."
Abandon all hope ye who enter here
If it's a website which only works with a specific browser, it's a shitsite.
At that point it's not even a website. It's just content for the app. Calling it a website is like calling my Minecraft base a website.
Companies like chrome because it’s the most used browser. So if they develop for it, and only for it without caring of compatibility on others, then it’s cheaper. And since they don’t want you to use another browser and complain that their site is broken, the just block you.
Which is kind of dumb, because if you target Firefox you are writing to a standards compliant browser that means your code should work on all other browsers. Chrome came when IE still owned the internet and their goal was to offer a faster browser that still worked, so now chrome has a bunch of hacks coded into it.
Sometimes the president or CEO just doesn't give a shit even when devs tell them otherwise.
Devs don't always get a lot of choice when the upper management thinks chrome is better
It's why baracuda only really advertised in airport terminals everywhere.
The devs can tell management they'll make it work on Chrome while really making it work cross-browser. It's not too hard to make a site cross-browser these days, except for Safari sometimes having weird bugs.
Pfft, who would do that? As a Firefox user myself I never would. Carve out a bit of time on the down-low to enhance cross-browser support on a website after management shortsightedly told me to just block anything other than Chrome? No no no! Not me!
Of course as others here (including you) have pointed out, it's much less of an issue these days. Though it does still happen, it's nowhere near as bad as the IE days (that browser can burn in hell for all eternity!).
Shouldn't they just commit to follow the web standards? Most modern browsers strive to follow those standards.
Well chrome should, yes. But they don't.
Then some JavaScript framework developers think "well this non-standard feature is neat, let's use that everywhere" and then companies who use their framework (or a framwork dependent on it) can't support all browsers.
It's a multilayered problem (as always) with lots of individually decisions that make sense, but don't work out in the end (as always).
I think the most annoying thing here is the decision to blanket ban other browsers. Why not just have a little drop-down bar at the top that says 'You may encounter issues, we recommend browsing this site with Google Chrome', instead of completely blocking access? The cynic in me suspects it's linked to advertising.
If one changes the user agent in Firefox so that it announces itself as Chrome, most of these sites work just fine. Adobe Express is the last example I tried.
Because that would reveal that their site is flawed, instead of blaming the customer for not using the right browser.
Doesn't have to be, some features are only available in certain browsers (usually Chromium). For example AFAIK Chromium is the only browser that allows you to connect in the browser to Bluetooth devices, its the only browser that can access for example a phone's NFC chip or that can interact with USB devices.
That’s my point. Example, meet Sarah. Sarah goes to www.megacorp.com to pair her new MegaDevice via NFC. She gets to the pairing page and there’s only a small banner that tells her her browser may not work. She doesn’t see it and starts the syncing. It fails repeatedly. Her first thought will be “O.. Mygod! mergacorp’s website is like, so. Broken!” Now example B: Sarah goes to the website and sees “WRONG BROWSER, use chrome instead” on the screen in big. Now Sarah thinks “Oh, I’m stupid, it’s my bad, I should use Chrome instead instead of Firefox. Firefox is the worst”. Then end.
Ads and tracking ? Browser with the largest market share ? Well, we are back to IE6 monopoly. :(
Largest marketshare to check for compatibility, while ignoring all the other browsers.
It's almost certainly market share. Easier to just slap a "use chrome" check on it than to spend any dev time supporting the others.
On the other hand, if it works in Firefox, it’s likely to work everywhere else.
I use Firefox for development and then, barring some weird chrome bug, things just work everywhere.
Even though they’ve been into some predatory micro loaning schemes in the last last years (opera)
Eco system, email, google account, all bookmarks saved between devices. Where as Firefox you'll need to actively make an account. Chrome also come pre installed on some systems, ive also seen that many installers for random software will offer to install chrome.
Its all subtle manipulation that leads to people using chrome because everyone uses chrome.
Personally I use Firefox based browsers. I font want to support google.
If it truly is only an hour of someone's time, then I'd much rather they made that insignificant amount less profit, but did the work to make our experience better.
Exactly what I saw. A giant nope.
I found a bug once in our content that only affected Firefox. Old versions of articulate whouldnt start properly. Not somthing I could fix on my own as i meeded anyoher department. I brought it to the attention of the managers. They didn't want to fox it as apprently Google analytics showed only .4% of our user base was using Firefox. I manged to convince them its part of our user commitment to ensure that we work consistently across all browsers, but it was a pain.
That's the main issue of using analytics and telemetry on something that's used by power users: most of them disable/block them, so the real reported usage is much lower
Maybe it was that low because the site didn't work properly on Firefox...
Exactly. When the planes come back from battle, you put armor on all the places where the bullet holes aren't, because that's where the planes that didn't make it back were shot.
If only being part of the .4% was like being part of "the 1%".
🍻here’s to all the developers out there who makes sure there site works great not only with Firefox, but also with ublock origin and piholes!
It is always shocking to me how many sites or apps completely fail to load if you dare block google analytics!
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/worldwide
According to this:
On the desktop, Firefox has about 6% marketshare, and Edge, the Windows default, about 11%.
On mobile, however, Firefox is at 0.5%, and Edge at 0.3%.
A lot of people only browse the Web on a mobile platform. And the ones using those tend to use the default browser bundled with their phone; if what they have out-of-box works, they're not going to install anything else. Apple bundles Safari, and Google bundles Chrome, so that's what gets used.
That's why I started setting Firefox as the default browser on my family's phones. They were too annoyed by ads and almost got scammed once. With Firefox and uBlock Origin it's like magic for them. Plus they don't visit any non-mainstream websites so they'll never encounter such a screen.
A small step to a better web-browsing experience for all of us.
It still doesn't explain all the extra work of detecting and intentionally blocking firefox...
Something didn't work on Firefox and the dev didn't get permission to work out how to fix it as it was uneconomical compared with just disabling firefox
I expect that they had something break on it and decided that it wasn't worth the time spent fixing it, so they just blocked it so more users didn't run into it. A simple message may be annoying to them, but at least they have a straightforward workaround then.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I use Firefox on both mobile and desktop, but it's not too hard to see why they'd do a cost/benefit analysis like that. No one company is in the business of trying to do antitrust work, to avoid a browser monopoly, and that'd be the reason why it'd be important to have competing browsers.
The point of a commercial website is that it is accessible from everywhere at every time.
It does not make sense to exclude an entire customer base just because you don't want to support multiple platforms.
If businesses were smart, yes. But they are, first and foremost, greedy.
Important to note as well that both Edge and Opera along with Chrome (and many other niche browsers) are based on Chromium, giving them an even bigger spread of users that are using the same browser from a compatability standpoint.
Chromebooks are frequently used in US schools, this has to screw the statistics.
for the love of god, charge your phone
4%, absolute madman, probably only had time to make this post and can't answer comments anymore
RIP {I can't type out that username}, you shall be remembered while you charge your phone
4% is enough for like 8-10 minutes tho
Counterpoint: let the battery run out and have a nice rest!
Because they hire cheap developers who don’t know what the fuck they are doing?
Is very possible to know exactly what should be done, but not have the time available to achieve it.
This is the correct answer
I would sooner blame the management, that would even think of excluding "untested" or "unsupported" browsers, like some kind of technofacist dictator, instead of choosing a helpful "if you're having problems with our shit site, use chrome" message... or even literally doing nothing... everything is broken these days, and a half-functional site is better than an intentionally-broken one.
The tools and knowledge exist to make building standards compliant web applications just as easy, if not easier, than chrome-only web applications. It's not the responsibility of management to use those tools or acquire that knowledge.
Unless you're using some fancy WebGPU shit. I don't think we're talking about some fancy WebGPU shit.
Well good thing my employer runs a script every 15 min to set the default browser to Edge.
run a script to set the default browser back to chrome just after it changes, using some timer estimation magic also... try taskkill
They probably get better metrics off of you running corporate logins and edge. Edge is equivalent to Chrome It supports all the same plugins.
It's probably just secops picking the low hanging fruit dissuade you subverting network security.
Edge is built upon chromium
When I say that Edge is equivalent to Chrome, I don't mean that Edge is exactly Chrome It's not what I said and it's not what I meant. I mean that for all intents and purposes you can use edge for anything you want to use Chrome for. Major differentiation is that you're giving all of your data to Microsoft in lieu of Google. And you could look at all the other chromium base browsers and say yeah you could do the same thing with those but in this case we have a business user. There's businesses are probably already running Microsoft networks. They might very well already have Microsoft SSO. Edge is going to have all kinds of great tie-ins to active directory policy. So secops/it is going to try to force you to use Edge, instead of say Firefox with a barely have any control over or maybe brave where you're going to try TOR or IPFS and just basically be a stain on their HIDS board.
What's this then?
Jesus man I just explained it to you. Welcome to my block list
Ah I see Mr I'm never wrong
Jeez, imagine.
I don't know, works on my browser.
-Devs, probably.
Spoofed user agent goes brrrr
Because Firefox has better XSS detection than Chrome and will block adware sites from injecting tracking that Chrome completely allows.
is this true?
In my experience of using the traffic inspection tool fiddler: for https sites you have to have it add its own self signed cert to be able to see traffic.
Firefox, out of the box, detects it immediately and warns you of a security issue, not letting you do anything.
Chrome, and chromium based browsers,
don't even notice it and happily let you do what needs to be done.
I've had the experience of a few sites not working recently in Firefox, one of them explicitly stated an ad server was blocked because of xss settings and refused to load. Chrome didn't care.
This could be a 'works better on chrome popup'. Instead it's a hard block
Yeah, that was the case in one of the companies I worked for. They only tested on Chrome and Edge.
I’ve been at companies that did that too, historically, but it seems like a solved problem. My current company does UI testing only through headless browsers and it seems to work
Nice!
I absolutely hate this. Ordered something last night that refused to work on Firefox or Firefox based browsers. Switched to my emergency Fulguris and checkout worked like police working for a white rich man.
I'm doing a course for cyber security at my local tafe, and thier website only works on Chrome. Go. Figure.
Better than when I went to college and everything only worked in IE
This is the browser where you have to be most careful.
Don't use that website if you can
I would thank them for letting me know their site isn't worth the visit.
Which is why we have HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript, supported by all major browsers.
Unless you're doing something outrageously non-standard, there is no reason to block specific browsers.
Except for politics.
These terms are absolutely meaningless. Browsers like all Chromium forks and Firefox add new CSS, HTML and JS features on a almost monthly basis. Safari then usually is takes a year more to implement them. And for the past few years Chrome has usually been adding new stuff the fastest, then Firefox a bit later and then Apple adds them after a year, but only if they don't threaten the native Apps on iOS because of AppStore money.
Web standards keep evolving, this is normal. Otherwise you would be still running Adobe Flash.
Safari is the new IE?
That's not what a web site is though. That's just an application with a network api.
Time for some user agent spoofing
It used to be the same way with Internet Explorer.
What really chaps my ass is when they don't bother to tell you. It always happens when I'm filling out a form and find out that the submit button just doesn't do anything. Then I have to go back through chrome just to fill out the same form a second time.
Worst part is that I get this with the government website in the UK. For me it was a sub menu which was supposed to appear when a certain option was clicked. It wouldn't display the sub menu in Firefox. Had to redo the damn thing in Edge...
I just call places like that and tell the service rep the website didn't work. They do it for me on their end usually and it costs the company more money for the trouble.
Yep and this happens more than the situation in the OP. Just... shit won't work. No reason why? Well fuck, let me try Chrome. Yep, that works.
It's just lazy devs. They program for Chrome and don't even test in anything else because that's 90% of the market. On the desktop.
This is hilariously not the case on mobile, where everything is programmed for Safari.
because it has more market share
By a huge margin
The really irritating part is that tools like Playwright let you end-to-end test your product across the big three (Chromium, Firefox and Webkit). Which, most of the time, means these products that specify "Chrome only" simply aren't E2E testing with modern tools.
The only end-to-end happening in those scenarios is the end-to-end pipeline of "shit in, shit out".
Let’s be honest, probably no (automated) pipelines involved in the whole project. Bonus points for SSH’ing into the production server and manually making edits there.
Find the user agent of the most recent chrome release and change your user agent in about:config
Don't change it browser-wide because stats trackers will think that Firefox's market share is going down. Use a user agent switching extension and change it only for the sites that need it.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/uaswitcher/
I wonder if it would work if you spoofed your user agent.
it almost always does, lol
You know the answer b
The answer to most questions is money.
Ads = money
Because Google Chrome setups a good framework from the moment you open it to track, collect data, basically free market your internet life. Companies like to work the less possible using the least money, if Google already gives them all that setup for a fee then it's more profitable than having to pay programmers to track you in other browsers.
So they deliberately are saying to your face: "I only let you use my stuff if you enter as naked as possible". They are not even shy about it.
Someone like this only deserves a spit in the face and a domain ban. Basically. They can fuck off.
Notes: Most of what I said is not exactly all the true. Most companies just reuse webpage code that it's only tested form chromium, so they only let you use that. Because they are lazy AF, they don't care about customers, they only care about money.
Chrome implements features that aren't standards track into their browser, and lazy/oblivious devs use these features to build their products - only to realize wayyy too late it won't work in Safari/Firefox because it uses APIs that are chrome only
Firefox still has no month or week inputs. These things have been standardized 10 years ago and implemented in Chrome as of version 20.
Use case: You want a weekly/monthly report for some particular week/month in business software.
Probably the reason it was never implemented is that it's barely an inconvenience. The input just fallback into a text field.
Probably because the week input is just a date picker that applies
Math.floor()on the result, and month inputs are better suited for a ``That input sucks, ui design and its not intuitive at all. Its more frustrating that I can't just type dates in
I have no clue what you’re trying to tell me with that.
cheap. easy to admin.
Limited time to build something so you have to pick based on a couple factors, often largest % of users.
If they develop for only Firefix it will work with all browsers because Firefox is standards compatible.
But does it mean the 15% is non-standard or just not implemented at all? If it's not implemented then all of the implementation is 100% standard compliant and if everyone stopped relying on the 15% part then developing for Firefox should make it compatible for rest of the browsers.
Have Chrome installed because Medcert requires it. Even if I agent switch, it still won’t function.
Atleast im not the one paying for Medcert, so w/e
Google pays them...
Said the same thing. Was downvoted for it. Lemmy is weird
Sorry to hear that. The Internet overall is a weird place. Some corners are more so than others.
Because it's secure
Because they’re paid to.
I believe that this is illegal.
Nope. Afaik, there is still no legal precedent set that you must make your publicly available website usable on more than one browser suite. Which is ludicrous, because Google has quietly been trying to make Chrome the only option.
There's no law saying you need to support multiple platforms. There are some windows apps that don't exist on macos for example. It just sucks.
You know what kind of org Google is don’t you ?
Firefox is less sketchy, and is one of the last browsers left that isn't based on Chromium. Just saying.
what's sketchy about Firefox?
This video explains pretty well how Firefox is turning worse on the privacy aspect of things.
bravevivaldiWould you prefer they go back to mandating that you use Internet explorer?
Progress is slow little steps forward, with a step back here and there.
Chrome was better that ie. It was also available for use on all of the big operating systems.
The fewer Internet browsers a page has to support the faster it is to build and the more people will have a uniform experience there.
I'd rather they not give a damn what browser you use as long as it complies with current web standards. That's kinda the whole point of there being open standards.