5 ms·

That’s a terrible excuse since 1) there are plenty of remote/virtualisation tools that let you easily test any browser or platform 2) same logic applies to mobi

That’s a terrible excuse since 1) there are plenty of remote/virtualisation tools that let you easily test any browser or platform 2) same logic applies to mobile 3) iPhone has up to 80% share in many locations, Macs up to 25% share in some demographics

PetahNZ 8y ago
Please share these tools for testing old safari, last time I checked I couldn't find any
- ricardobeat 8y ago
  Browserstack, crossbrowsertesting.com, sauce labs.
neurotrace 8y ago
It may not be fair but it's true. Testing for Safari is such a hassle in my Windows and Android dominated world.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  That's a good argument for always supporting multiple platforms if you're a browser developer. In related news, the new Edge will be released for macOS. I think Apple should follow suit with Safari on Windows again (shouldn't be too much work, since they already have the build and toolchain from a while back).
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    IIRC, Safari on Windows is a decade old or more. I'd bet mainline Safari has changed a lot in that time. Would probably be a significant amount of work. And, uh, Apple's programs for Windows have a history of being really bad. Possibly done intentionally, but even so...
dspillett 8y ago
> 1) there are plenty of remote/virtualisation tools For small/personal projects they need to be free and, for some of us, available offline (I often tinker locally while travelling through low/no signal areas). Do you know of any that fit that bill? Even with free and convenient tools some will resent needing to test on an extra platform at all just because Safari is slow to adopt new ideas or implements them partially/buggyly. > 2) same logic applies to mobile Incorrectly, but yes it does. Which is why you often see "doesn't work on mobile" or "works badly on mobile" in comments here and elsewhere. Mobile is a more general thing than supporting Safari though and a battle in its own right: it is more about accounting for small screens, no physical keyboards, touch-only, low power CPUs, etc. > 3) iPhone has up to 80% share in many locations, If a project is not optimised for (or not working at all on) mobile generally, then iDevices having x% share of mobile for particular populations becomes irrelevant. 80% seems rather high for any given population though, could you state any for which this is definitely true? > Macs up to 25% share in some demographics You are not potentially cutting these people off by not supporting Safari though, as they have the option of using other UAs unlike users of iOS based devices.

PetahNZ 8y ago

Please share these tools for testing old safari, last time I checked I couldn't find any

ricardobeat 8y ago
Browserstack, crossbrowsertesting.com, sauce labs.

neurotrace 8y ago

It may not be fair but it's true. Testing for Safari is such a hassle in my Windows and Android dominated world.

TimTheTinker 8y ago
That's a good argument for always supporting multiple platforms if you're a browser developer. In related news, the new Edge will be released for macOS. I think Apple should follow suit with Safari on Windows again (shouldn't be too much work, since they already have the build and toolchain from a while back).
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  IIRC, Safari on Windows is a decade old or more. I'd bet mainline Safari has changed a lot in that time. Would probably be a significant amount of work. And, uh, Apple's programs for Windows have a history of being really bad. Possibly done intentionally, but even so...

dspillett 8y ago

> 1) there are plenty of remote/virtualisation tools For small/personal projects they need to be free and, for some of us, available offline (I often tinker locally while travelling through low/no signal areas). Do you know of any that fit that bill? Even with free and convenient tools some will resent needing to test on an extra platform at all just because Safari is slow to adopt new ideas or implements them partially/buggyly. > 2) same logic applies to mobile Incorrectly, but yes it does. Which is why you often see "doesn't work on mobile" or "works badly on mobile" in comments here and elsewhere. Mobile is a more general thing than supporting Safari though and a battle in its own right: it is more about accounting for small screens, no physical keyboards, touch-only, low power CPUs, etc. > 3) iPhone has up to 80% share in many locations, If a project is not optimised for (or not working at all on) mobile generally, then iDevices having x% share of mobile for particular populations becomes irrelevant. 80% seems rather high for any given population though, could you state any for which this is definitely true? > Macs up to 25% share in some demographics You are not potentially cutting these people off by not supporting Safari though, as they have the option of using other UAs unlike users of iOS based devices.