5 ms·

Why are you using such an old browser? Part of the reason sites are built for current browsers is that responsible users should be updating their browsers freq

Why are you using such an old browser? Part of the reason sites are built for current browsers is that responsible users should be updating their browsers frequently. With as many ways as you can have your machine compromised by simply browsing to a website that had some malicious advertising code embedded, I can't imagine why anybody would use such an old browser if they weren't absolutely forced to.

unethical_ban 10y ago
That misses the point. Security is one thing, features are another. Regardless of whether a user should update regularly for security patches, the Internet should support 3-year-old technologies, or gracefully fail otherwise.
nonbel 10y ago
For most people it is because the (desired) security updates come bundled with (undesired) UI changes, default search engine changes, increased telemetry, etc. I work with a visually impaired PhD student, and we had to turn off browser updates because of the hell it was causing him (eg why are my search results different all of a sudden? why are pdfs opening differently?). This isn't limited to firefox, google voice recently got a UI update that lowered the information density. Where he used to be able to see who he was talking to now there is a big colored shape surrounded by whitespace, etc. If he didn't limit the updates, probably 25-50% of his time would be spent dealing with interface changes.
- discreditable 10y ago
  Nurturing inflexibility to change in a user—especially a student—is setting them up for failure in a world of frequent and sudden change.
  - apostacy 10y ago
    Well maybe companies that create this stuff should be more flexible in accommodating the users. It's not our responsibility to work around someone Else's updates. If something works now, why should it be changed because it's more convenient for Google?
  - phanimahesh 10y ago
    Anecdote: I had a friend in college. Visually impaired - tunnel vision and a degrading retina. Takes him a good few seconds to locate things on familiar UI. New UI is hell. I know because I was by his side all through college. Your comment makes it look as if you never worked with someone who suffers due to needless design changes.
    - discreditable 10y ago
      I work in high school education. I've dealt with inflexibility from staff and students alike. When I started we never ran software updates precisely because people didn't like change. I changed that policy and moved to tracking upstream as closely as I can manage. While it was very hard at first, users have adapted and become better at adapting to new changes quickly. Five years later, I do not see nearly as many "this changed and I don't know how to do it anymore"-type questions as I used to. The initial break was quite hard, but I'm very glad I did it.
      - vacri 10y ago
        There's a difference between people being just plain stubborn, and people with an actual disability that hampers them.
        apostacy 10y ago
        Indeed. I have worked in assistive technology consulting, and it is very difficult to keep up with all of the "upgrades". It is clear that we value shiny bullshit more than being accessable and inclusive. And nobody can even make the case that cutting off more and more people from the web even benefits us.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Technology should serve its users, not the other way around and change-for-changes sake is an extremely bad strategy.
    - discreditable 10y ago
      I agree. However, the reality is that software changes constantly. We can accept change and move on with life, or fight change forever.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Not everybody is in a position to 'accept and move on with life', their lives are challenging enough without constant change. The fact that us techies tend to downplay those challenges does not make them any less real for others.
      - sedachv 10y ago
        Why should anyone accept planned obsolescence?
    - mnm1 10y ago
      "change-for-changes sake is an extremely bad strategy." Yup. It's also the go-to strategy for startups and tech companies in general once they have run out of real ideas for their product and one of the quickest ways tech companies' products degrade into shit.
apostacy 10y ago
When was it decided that it was the users responsibility to use the latest version of a web browser (regardless of how inconvenient it is for the user)? Oh right, Google and the cabal that runs the web decided so. Just because something is "old" doesn't mean it is obsolete. This mentality is very wrong, and needs to be opposed. It isn't helping the users, it is helping the platforms. Up until a few years ago, it was the responsibility of the developer to gracefully fall back and support as many users as possible. Now, instead, we design under the assumption that everyone has a computer made within the last 12-18 months, with the latest updates, on a high speed, low latency connection. And that is awful, because it is cutting out users who aren't privileged enough to afford the web. The new "improved" Google Voice is utter trash. It makes my 2011 Macbook grind to a halt. And for what? So that it cosmetically resembles their new phone app. And most tech reporting websites are gushing about how it looks. And what is the justification for all of this garbage? Is the web faster? more reliable? More accessible to people with disabilities? NO.
- jbicha 10y ago
  It's not the user's responsibility to update their browser. The updates happen automatically unless a user intentionally disables it.
  - exodust 10y ago
    The point they were making is that users are now burdened with the responsibility of ensuring their computers are compatible with the web, rather than the web ensuring their sites are compatible with users.
apostacy 10y ago
I use Firefox 29 for most of my profiles. Because I have a very specific workflow with add-ons, that runs circles around any Chrome user. It's also more secure, because of my external sandboxing. I also have my own container mechanism for Firefox that I have been using for years. And this is what the web is all about. It used to be that the web was accessible to people in remote parts of the world, using old hardware, and anyone could write and add to it. Now it's quickly becoming a black box that only wealthy people can access.
- oatmealsnap 10y ago
  That's quite the hyperbole. The performance gains that come with newer browsers (generally) should allow websites to run on older hardware. Not to mention support for new protocols and compression that lead to smaller assets being sent to all devices.
  - apostacy 10y ago
    I can see how my comment wasn't clear. The fact that disadvantaged people are being driven off the web has nothing to do with the fact that I have a highly customized browser setup. I probably should have made that more clear.
- DominoTree 10y ago
  It seems as if your paradigm shifts it from "only wealthy people can access" to "only people technically competent enough to set up a sandbox can access"
  - apostacy 10y ago
    No, I wasn't advocating that anyone use my advanced browser setup. I was just illustrating that there are reasons why someone would want to do so. I really shouldn't have to do this. Mozilla should have put more effort into add-on compatibility. Add-ons are the only thing that Firefox has going for it.

unethical_ban 10y ago

That misses the point. Security is one thing, features are another. Regardless of whether a user should update regularly for security patches, the Internet should support 3-year-old technologies, or gracefully fail otherwise.

nonbel 10y ago

For most people it is because the (desired) security updates come bundled with (undesired) UI changes, default search engine changes, increased telemetry, etc. I work with a visually impaired PhD student, and we had to turn off browser updates because of the hell it was causing him (eg why are my search results different all of a sudden? why are pdfs opening differently?). This isn't limited to firefox, google voice recently got a UI update that lowered the information density. Where he used to be able to see who he was talking to now there is a big colored shape surrounded by whitespace, etc. If he didn't limit the updates, probably 25-50% of his time would be spent dealing with interface changes.

discreditable 10y ago
Nurturing inflexibility to change in a user—especially a student—is setting them up for failure in a world of frequent and sudden change.
- apostacy 10y ago
  Well maybe companies that create this stuff should be more flexible in accommodating the users. It's not our responsibility to work around someone Else's updates. If something works now, why should it be changed because it's more convenient for Google?
- phanimahesh 10y ago
  Anecdote: I had a friend in college. Visually impaired - tunnel vision and a degrading retina. Takes him a good few seconds to locate things on familiar UI. New UI is hell. I know because I was by his side all through college. Your comment makes it look as if you never worked with someone who suffers due to needless design changes.
  - discreditable 10y ago
    I work in high school education. I've dealt with inflexibility from staff and students alike. When I started we never ran software updates precisely because people didn't like change. I changed that policy and moved to tracking upstream as closely as I can manage. While it was very hard at first, users have adapted and become better at adapting to new changes quickly. Five years later, I do not see nearly as many "this changed and I don't know how to do it anymore"-type questions as I used to. The initial break was quite hard, but I'm very glad I did it.
    - vacri 10y ago
      There's a difference between people being just plain stubborn, and people with an actual disability that hampers them.
      - apostacy 10y ago
        Indeed. I have worked in assistive technology consulting, and it is very difficult to keep up with all of the "upgrades". It is clear that we value shiny bullshit more than being accessable and inclusive. And nobody can even make the case that cutting off more and more people from the web even benefits us.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Technology should serve its users, not the other way around and change-for-changes sake is an extremely bad strategy.
  - discreditable 10y ago
    I agree. However, the reality is that software changes constantly. We can accept change and move on with life, or fight change forever.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Not everybody is in a position to 'accept and move on with life', their lives are challenging enough without constant change. The fact that us techies tend to downplay those challenges does not make them any less real for others.
    - sedachv 10y ago
      Why should anyone accept planned obsolescence?
  - mnm1 10y ago
    "change-for-changes sake is an extremely bad strategy." Yup. It's also the go-to strategy for startups and tech companies in general once they have run out of real ideas for their product and one of the quickest ways tech companies' products degrade into shit.

apostacy 10y ago

When was it decided that it was the users responsibility to use the latest version of a web browser (regardless of how inconvenient it is for the user)? Oh right, Google and the cabal that runs the web decided so. Just because something is "old" doesn't mean it is obsolete. This mentality is very wrong, and needs to be opposed. It isn't helping the users, it is helping the platforms. Up until a few years ago, it was the responsibility of the developer to gracefully fall back and support as many users as possible. Now, instead, we design under the assumption that everyone has a computer made within the last 12-18 months, with the latest updates, on a high speed, low latency connection. And that is awful, because it is cutting out users who aren't privileged enough to afford the web. The new "improved" Google Voice is utter trash. It makes my 2011 Macbook grind to a halt. And for what? So that it cosmetically resembles their new phone app. And most tech reporting websites are gushing about how it looks. And what is the justification for all of this garbage? Is the web faster? more reliable? More accessible to people with disabilities? NO.

jbicha 10y ago
It's not the user's responsibility to update their browser. The updates happen automatically unless a user intentionally disables it.
- exodust 10y ago
  The point they were making is that users are now burdened with the responsibility of ensuring their computers are compatible with the web, rather than the web ensuring their sites are compatible with users.

apostacy 10y ago

I use Firefox 29 for most of my profiles. Because I have a very specific workflow with add-ons, that runs circles around any Chrome user. It's also more secure, because of my external sandboxing. I also have my own container mechanism for Firefox that I have been using for years. And this is what the web is all about. It used to be that the web was accessible to people in remote parts of the world, using old hardware, and anyone could write and add to it. Now it's quickly becoming a black box that only wealthy people can access.

oatmealsnap 10y ago
That's quite the hyperbole. The performance gains that come with newer browsers (generally) should allow websites to run on older hardware. Not to mention support for new protocols and compression that lead to smaller assets being sent to all devices.
- apostacy 10y ago
  I can see how my comment wasn't clear. The fact that disadvantaged people are being driven off the web has nothing to do with the fact that I have a highly customized browser setup. I probably should have made that more clear.
DominoTree 10y ago
It seems as if your paradigm shifts it from "only wealthy people can access" to "only people technically competent enough to set up a sandbox can access"
- apostacy 10y ago
  No, I wasn't advocating that anyone use my advanced browser setup. I was just illustrating that there are reasons why someone would want to do so. I really shouldn't have to do this. Mozilla should have put more effort into add-on compatibility. Add-ons are the only thing that Firefox has going for it.