
A Non-Business Case for Supporting Old Browsers - riledhel
https://www.ovl.design/text/a-non-business-case-for-supporting-old-browsers/
======
harimau777
I think that the best reason for not supporting old browsers is that most
developers dislike it enough that it's not worth the drop in moral.

------
Porthos9K
Never mind IE11.
[http://motherfuckingwebsite.com](http://motherfuckingwebsite.com) still works
on IE6, and why shouldn't it? It's plain HTML with no CSS or JS.

There is no reason why any web document should not still be readable in Lynx,
Mosaic, or even WorldWideWeb.

Web applications are a bit more complicated, but that complication is self-
inflicted. We developers choose to to hijack users' devices for work that
should be done on the server in the name of providing a better user
experience, and we make our work harder in the process.

Supporting old browsers isn't that hard. Build a solid foundation of HTML,
HTTP GET, and HTTP POST, even if it means doing full page refreshes. You can
always layer your AJAX calls and such on top. It's called "progressive
enhancement", remember?

~~~
jpswade
That website doesn't do anything.

~~~
userbinator
It doesn't need to. The "everything must be a web app" mindset is completely
unnecessary and actively harmful to accessibility. I've seen far too many
"redesigns" turn a site of static pages or even forms into a horribly slow and
buggy limited-browser-support SPA that excludes access for no real reason.

~~~
jpswade
I think you missed the point.

This website doesn't do anything but others do. Browsers have to support both.

------
throwaway35784
As with all things it's a cost benefit analysis. It costs money to support old
browsers and a lot of money doesn't come from them do do the math.

I was trying to buy movie tickets online the other day.I tried Firefox then
Firefox without ad blockers, then ie, then edge, then chrome on two different
desk top machines.

Then my gf bought them on her phone browser.

Thanks mobile first development. How much money must you be costing your
adherents?

~~~
userbinator
_It costs money to support old browsers_

One of the arguments the article makes is that it _doesn 't_ \--- thanks to
the backwards-compatible nature of the Web, anything that works on an older
browser is likely to continue working on the newer one.

~~~
denkmoon
So I have to design and build for the older browser then hope that the newer
browser handles it properly, whilst also constraining myself from using any
newer functionality?

That seems backwards.

~~~
userbinator
The article is saying that you don't "build for the older browser" \--- or
indeed _any_ browser specifically, but instead start off with basic HTML and
adding just enough markup and styling around the content as you desire. Maybe
you'll later tweak the site to look exactly the way you want in a specific
browser, but this process means that even if it doesn't look _perfect_ , other
browsers will likely be able to use the site too.

