4 ms·
Yes. Agreed. Sites should be doing their best to avoid having to check the UA String. For some tightly-controlled environments (medical, aerospace, etc...) whe
by daveslash 5y ago
Yes. Agreed. Sites should be doing their best to avoid having to check the UA String.
For some tightly-controlled environments (medical, aerospace, etc...) where all software components & tooling has to be qualified for use, I can see checking the UA in order to throw up a "your browser is not supported" banner ("not supported usually means "we haven't tested it, so we can't assert this web app will work properly", not so much "our app won't work"). But sites should really avoid responding with different content/html, etc.... for different browsers (though, I have encountered sites that serve images as webp to chrome and jpg to IE...)
- dgb23 5y agoThe picture element let’s you do that very conveniently w/o checking the UA. It’s a bit like a switch statement.
- silvestrov 5y ago> tightly-controlled environments (medical, aerospace, ...) This are places where you don't automatically upgrade browsers but keep them at one specific version. No rocket/airplane wants to stop working because something changed. It is also places which are good at writing contracts that can ensure such things to work, so these places should not be a concern. It's likely cheap shoddy sites that will be a problem. The ones that think jQuery is too advanced tech.