from Hacker News

Please build websites for the web, not just Google Chrome

by lsc36 on 11/29/17, 5:07 AM with 25 comments

• by bootsz on 11/29/17, 2:37 PM

  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 :)

• by skate22 on 11/29/17, 12:11 PM

  This reminds me of the microsoft rep that installed chrome mid demo because edge wasnt working properly lol (article was posted on HN a few weeks ago)

  https://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2017/10/30/microsoft-engine...

• by fanpuns on 11/29/17, 11:50 AM

  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.

• by talmand on 11/29/17, 2:50 PM

  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.

• by ilaksh on 11/29/17, 3:27 PM

  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.

• by bradknowles on 11/29/17, 6:39 AM

  Unfortunately, thenextweb.com site doesn’t open at all for me on iOS and Safari.

  Hmm. Maybe they should take some of their own medicine?

• by curtisblaine on 11/29/17, 10:10 AM

  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.

• by herbst on 11/29/17, 10:55 AM

  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.