3 ms·

Using Firefox with the user agent changed to chrome seems to get around this

by stnvh 4y ago

stavros 4y ago
Of course it will, so the question becomes "why drive away Firefox when it works fine"?
- Polarity 4y ago
  we all know the answer
  - tssva 4y ago
    Because Firefox has such a small market share that it isn't worth spending the resources to support it.
    - detaro 4y ago
      How is adding a thing that complains that the user is using Firefox less resources spent than not doing it?
      - TwoFx 4y ago
        Adding the thing that complains is a one-time cost. It may work on Firefox now, but making sure that it continues working on Firefox is a continuous resource investment.
        detaro 4y ago
        And not adding it and not testing for Firefox would cost nothing, and currently improve the user experience - because it actually just works, as a lot of things just do.
        swores 4y ago
        But then what if a bug in their code that only affects FF goes unnoticed due to testing, and causes significant problems for a big client, or a journalist reviewing it, or... Personally I feel a "We don't officially support this browser, it probably works but we only test for full compatibility in <these browsers>" is a better option if you're going to go in that direction. But I can understand why even that is a bit of a risk as if a user decides to ignore that warning and then some time later encounters a bug that, let's say, causes them to lose half a day of work, they're likely to walk away blaming the company (and maybe go round telling people they know what a shit thing it is) even if the bug wouldn't have happened had they been using one of the browsers that is fully supported and gets tested.
        stnvh 4y ago
        It seems more like the devs at MS know their code works on Firefox but have been asked by exec to push chromium(-esque) because edge is now webkit. sidenote: this is a multi-billion $ company, no excuse to ignore any platform with their capacity, front face it looks like they can't build a good app anymore, especially if it works anyway with a simple string change in the browser - heck, web devs had to factor in ie7-8 polyfills built by the community only a few years ago. no excuse.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    With or without sarcasm, your comment adds little to the conversation, and encourages flaming - that is why it is being downvoted.
AnonC 4y ago
I recall that the advice given to web developers for a long time was to query browser capabilities instead of relying on a user agent string. If this site is indeed relying on the user agent string, I don’t get why larger companies which probably have better capable teams resort to this.

Using Firefox with the user agent changed to chrome seems to get around this

by stnvh 4y ago

Using Firefox with the user agent changed to chrome seems to get around this

stavros 4y ago

Of course it will, so the question becomes "why drive away Firefox when it works fine"?

Polarity 4y ago
we all know the answer
- tssva 4y ago
  Because Firefox has such a small market share that it isn't worth spending the resources to support it.
  - detaro 4y ago
    How is adding a thing that complains that the user is using Firefox less resources spent than not doing it?
    - TwoFx 4y ago
      Adding the thing that complains is a one-time cost. It may work on Firefox now, but making sure that it continues working on Firefox is a continuous resource investment.
      - detaro 4y ago
        And not adding it and not testing for Firefox would cost nothing, and currently improve the user experience - because it actually just works, as a lot of things just do.
        swores 4y ago
        But then what if a bug in their code that only affects FF goes unnoticed due to testing, and causes significant problems for a big client, or a journalist reviewing it, or... Personally I feel a "We don't officially support this browser, it probably works but we only test for full compatibility in <these browsers>" is a better option if you're going to go in that direction. But I can understand why even that is a bit of a risk as if a user decides to ignore that warning and then some time later encounters a bug that, let's say, causes them to lose half a day of work, they're likely to walk away blaming the company (and maybe go round telling people they know what a shit thing it is) even if the bug wouldn't have happened had they been using one of the browsers that is fully supported and gets tested.
        stnvh 4y ago
        It seems more like the devs at MS know their code works on Firefox but have been asked by exec to push chromium(-esque) because edge is now webkit. sidenote: this is a multi-billion $ company, no excuse to ignore any platform with their capacity, front face it looks like they can't build a good app anymore, especially if it works anyway with a simple string change in the browser - heck, web devs had to factor in ie7-8 polyfills built by the community only a few years ago. no excuse.
2Gkashmiri 4y ago
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  With or without sarcasm, your comment adds little to the conversation, and encourages flaming - that is why it is being downvoted.

AnonC 4y ago

I recall that the advice given to web developers for a long time was to query browser capabilities instead of relying on a user agent string. If this site is indeed relying on the user agent string, I don’t get why larger companies which probably have better capable teams resort to this.