this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
18 points (60.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43458 readers
2232 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you're developing software for one client who only uses a specific browser, I can see this being okay, but several times I have chosen not to buy things from websites that were broken in Firefox. I don't bother to check whether they'd work in Chromium, I just buy it elsewhere.
The number of people who act like me probably isn't large in absolute terms, but how many customers have been lost because of a broken website that you didn't even know about because they just left without a trace?
This might not apply to you, but it's some food for thought whenever Web developers decide to be sloppy and not check compatibility for a browser that still has significant market share.
Same. I'm not bothering with broken web sites.
I'm not in the US though, so I don't get many of them.
The number of people who act like that is negligible. We tested for that.
We don't see it as that we are sloppy but that Firefox is not a good browser. We came to that conclusion because no other browser acts like that.
Don't you think that it may be because Firefox is pretty much the only browser using a different engine that Chromium? There are literally two major browser engines, and you're developing for one them. Ofc everything else will act like Chromium, because they are Chromium for the most part.
That's all really nice. But the fact is, we use what works. It's a pragmatic decision. They're are so few Firefox users and on the end issues are not very common.
The number of Edge users is only a few % more, do you skip that too? Just check Chrome and Safari and call it a day?
As someone that uses only Firefox and knows others who do, this really surprises me. If a website is broken on Firefox then it's shitty webdev work and I'll find another store.
Edge is the same as Chrome, so no extra testing is needed for that.
Yes, Edge has transitioned to using their own forked version of Chromium under the hood, but they make enough changes that it's necessary to test for. It's not like Cromite that takes Chromium and removes some things and change configs. They modify core components of the engine itself.
Everything works fine in edge. Only Firefox has issues.
Users don't care why that is. If their app doesn't work they won't use this niche browser that very few people use.
Funny, we get more complaints about DuckDuckGo browser than anything else, and that's one of the few we don't test on. I know this because I make it a point to have someone from CS tell me about consistent pain points users are having. I wonder how many complaints about Firefox not working your customer service team is getting daily and you just don't hear about it because they've been told to tell users "just say Firefox isn't a supported browser and to try installing Chrome."
You should ask someone in CS. Whichever agent bullshits the least (not the manager) - you might learn something.
Almost 3/10 people accessing your sites are using Firefox. All those "images not loading right or whatever" are probably blatant to them, making them think "wow, what an absolute shit website."
3 out of 10.
Im grateful for you suggestions and your calls for me to learn something. I'm sure they are well meaning and not as patronising as they sound at first.
The facts are : we don't get many Firefox users. As far as we know most things are functional if not 100% visually correct. We don't tell anyone not to use Firefox. I personally have stopped using Firefox because of broken apps (not mine specifically).
I don't need to defend my position here. I don't care why apps are not working, they just aren't and I need them. Anyone can scream and cry how this is not firefoxes fault - nobody cares while the apps still aren't running.
Your views seem to be very narrow despite being a developer.
There are many misconceptions in your short sentence.
I want you to point them out.
That my view is narrow and that developers somehow can't have narrow views.
Yes. Your view is narrow. You do not care about the technical details and just label Firefox as "bad/broken" because you do not know how to work with it. That is a pretty narrow view. You do not care about the idealogical reasons that people bring up in here either.
I am expecting a person that is talented enough to be a developer to not have narrow views.
That's a strawman. It is not like that at all and I never said it was. I even specifically said that I know the reason it is like it is. I do know how to work with it. And no, I have an ideology, something I mentioned many times : I'm a pragmatist.
Many developers have narrow views. Probably most have.
Funny enough this 'slop' is compliance, but hey you seem to think you're mega dev supreme so I'm sure you already knew that
I never said anything about me. I only said I'm pragmatic.
Genuinely curiousβhow?