What's your opinion on websites that "force" users to use modern browsers?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1643963

by ergo14 • 16 years ago

3 14 16 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

I'm about to launch my first SaaS application, it is geared specifically towards webshops, or owners of big sites, in short I don't expect general audience to use my services (basicly webdevelopers) would use it.

I strongly believe that web should not be slowed by Internet Explorer, and I want to use features like canvas, css shadows and other properties - without resorting to ugly hacks or image slicing to get a pleasant effect. I know IE9 will support this functionality or other users can use chrome frame if they insist to use IE.

Would you find it acceptable to demand from my future clients to use modern web browser?

I strongly believe in open technologies and what HTML5 and CSS3 has to offer and would go in that direction.

obsessive1• 16 years ago

Personally, I don't mind when sites complain about my browser, as long as there is still an element of choice. Not all HTML5/CSS3 features are there in stable versions of a lot of browsers, so if your site were to use a feature only available in the latest stable version of Chrome, for example, and not Firefox, then I would consider that to be too restrictive.

However from the sounds of it, your application should work in the latest stable version of the major web browsers, which, in my opinion, is enough.

ergo146• 16 years ago

Indeed, but i would find a common denominator - I would go with features firefox 3.x, webkit, opera + ie9 support. This seems like sane compromise to me.

mikecane3• 16 years ago

You're ignoring the many slow computers that are still out there in the world, but perhaps your market won't encompass those.

I have an old PC. 1.8GHz Celeron. YouTube complained all the time that I should get a "modern" browser. I was using Firefox 2.x -- which was faster for me than the latest Chrome. Also, Fox could play YT videos, while Chrome and even Safari could not. (I'd tried Fox 3.x early on, but it slowed the entire PC to a crawl and I had to rollback to 2.x!)

I forget what frustration I encountered a week ago, but it finally drove me to try Opera. Let me tell you that Opera is sooooo wicked fast on this old PC that it's as if I've had an entire hardware upgrade. I'm not connected with Opera at all, just incredibly happy in using it. Now I can visit sites I had to avoid in the past due to multiple JScript errors (Gizmodo, io9, and the like).

If people are hesitant to switch browsers, suggest they try Opera at least once. As usual, TMMV.

ergo146• 16 years ago

Well, I can only say that I don't plan to put anything resource intensive to the layout, i'd risk to say that the website should work fast for you, not sure how well it would look on 2.x, but keep in mind that YT uses flash that is main resource hog(especially on linux). I'm pretty confident that it would run fine on your pc with firefox - because my android phone can run it ;-)

That makes me think now i should install fennec on my phone and see how that works.

mikecane3• 16 years ago

>>>because my android phone can run it ;-)

Sorry, but no. I've actually had to transfer some AVIs to my LifeDrive (400Mhz CPU) to play them because they'd be cloggy when using vlc on this PC! (Yes, I've scanned for malware; done plenty of officially recommended optimizing stuff -- which, btw, I should have also said I'm at XP SP2, because SP3 made this machine crawl too!)

It could also be I have the crappiest PC on earth, one of very few.

limedaring• 16 years ago

Why not use things that'll degrade gracefully in less-modern browsers? shadows are awesome, but whatever if they don't show up in other browsers.

For example: http://dowebsitesneedtolookexactlythesameineverybrowser.com/

Now, when it comes to major functionality — if your application simply won't work in IE — you need to decide whether the tradeoff is worth it. You won't be tarred and feathered if you have a giant sign saying people need to use a different browser to use your application. You're simply going to lose users. And note, the vast majority of those users aren't going to download the browser and use your application, they're simply going to leave.

ergo146• 16 years ago

I'm perfectly fine with idea of losing 5 users out of 100 - because 95% of my target base will use modern browser(or less because someone that doesn't use a decent browser will very likely be unable to benefit from my site in first place - specifics of my target group I suppose). Anyways It's not like i'm going to block anyone - I just don't want to support hacky code just to make IE users happy.

It's not like the website will be non-functional to IE users - it will probably just be ugly, thats all ;-) Which I guess is fine because its purpose is being a tool for webdevelopers and programmers.

Also some features just don't degrade at all ;-) like canvas (unless i use something like excanvas), but this part is competly optional to use, so not a biggie.

Think like https://developer.mozilla.org - being made to work in IE ;-)

prodigal_erik3• 16 years ago

I'd be ashamed to put out something that completely failed without nice frills like CSS and canvas. Links (the browser) is good enough for Gmail, so that's the level of competence I expect of myself.

ergo146• 16 years ago

Indeed, links is awesome at showing real time charts, I agree. I'm also sure mozilla is ashamed of their new MDN site, and FB for its facebook chat.

I need clarify, i want to use it for features, not "bling".

prodigal_erik3• 16 years ago

A real-time chart is a great progressive enhancement over the raw data. But when I can't get the data even without the chart, that's broken. As for other sites out there, I never claimed my opinions are commonly held. There's a long history of shoddy work succeeding in this industry.

What's your opinion on websites that "force" users to use modern browsers?

Related Stories