5 ms·

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share Unless you're targeting some really niche market people will hav

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share Unless you're targeting some really niche market people will have a relatively up2date browser. It's not a problem to use recent features once they've been implemented by Chrome and Safari.

2h 4y ago
The fact that most browsers aggressively push or even force updates should not be used as a justification for this. You're essentially saying "I want to use this months old API, and fuck you if you still have a browser from last year." People used to respect some amount of backward compatibility.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  Browsers used to not auto-update. There's no reason to "respect" backwards compatibility in an inherently online product that auto-updates. There's nothing ideological here, it's just about being practical.
  - 2h 4y ago
    not sure about Chrome, but you can turn off update on Firefox. I do this, and for good reason. I dont like the constant churn of browser UI moving around and changing every few months. So users in that situation should not be punished by web devs who only support the bleeding edge browser versions.
    - crazygringo 4y ago
      Then that's on you. When 90% of users are on the newest version within a couple weeks, that's not "bleeding edge". It's mainstream. You're also opening yourself up to security vulnerabilities as you browse. If you turn off auto update, it's up to you to accept the consequences of both security risks and of sites breaking.
      - 2h 4y ago
        > Then that's on you. you say that like I am the only person who does this. > When 90% of users are on the newest version within a couple weeks, that's not "bleeding edge". [citation needed]
        akarlsten 4y ago
        > you say that like I am the only person who does this. Essentially, yes: https://caniuse.com/usage-table https://caniuse.com/usage-table
        2h 4y ago
        2.7% of ALL browser usage is still a significant number, and certainly more than one person.
        superkuh 4y ago
        caniuse uses statscounter. It's really no surprise that statistics collected via javascript fail to include browsers that aren't executing it or don't have the modern JS "features" it uses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect
    - orhmeh09 4y ago
      Web devs should not punish such users, agreed. Who will pay extra on top of the hourly rate to address the needs you have? Especially when it's your problem with somebody else's software (Firefox) that would require this extra investment.
      - 2h 4y ago
        its not a problem with the software, its a problem with the web site adding features that only work with the newest browser, without any fallback for older browsers.
  - jlokier 4y ago
    Fwiw, Safari doesn't auto-update beyond a certain point if you are not running the latest OS version from Apple, which may be for several good reasons, but your hardware being unable to run it is surely the top reason. And neither Firefox nor Chrome self-updated beyond a certain point on my few years old Android tablet, which is still generally very usable for browsing and YouTube. And the browser on one of my phones stopped updating, once the OS stopped getting upgrades, for about 2 years before I stopped using that phone (because there was nothing as good as it to upgrade to). Non-latest browsers are a small percentage of users, but it's a myth some site designers believe that all Chrome, Firefox and Safari installs auto-update to latest versions except where the user decided for themselves to block updates. To the owner of devices in generally great shape, that work fine with alnost all sites, sites designed with the bleeding-edge assunption can feel a bit "unnecessarily buy a new version of the exact same electronics with your copious spare cash and litter some e-waste landfill to view our content today!". Site designer's choice of course. But it's a myth that the current mainstrean browsers stay up to date by default for everyone who doesn't disable it. Some users can't update. This should particularly be in the awareness of designers wanting sites to be readable by people without much disposable income, or some accessibility issues.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  In times past I would have fervently agreed with you. But in this day and age of browsers being Chrome and Chrome and Chrome and Chrome and Safari, all with forced autoupdates, there's little practical weight behind "browser <X> doesn't support it!". If Chrome supports it, the internet supports it whether any of us like it or not.
superkuh 4y ago
There's a lot of selection bias in collecting statistics with a package that'll only execute properly in the latest browsers and those running JS (as opposed to looking at webserver logs directly). I'll grant that vox probably only cares about serving content to people that can also see it's ads so it's a legitimate cut corner in this context. Their demographic is accessible eyes on ads and wallets, not people. If you want to serve content to human people and not just to eyes or wallets then at least be aware that most modern browser share statistics collected with JS don't reflect the reality you'd see in your webserver logs.
- akarlsten 4y ago
  I'd be very shocked if the percentage of all human users that have JS disabled is more than <0.1%. Even web crawlers and other bots can (and do) execute JS these days. I don't think the demographic is realistically relevant.
  - chrismorgan 4y ago
    Some crawlers execute JS, but last I heard or checked even Bing’s crawler seldom did, and Google’s clearly tried to avoid doing so. Of humans that deliberately disable JS, certainly going to be under 0.1%. (I’m one of them, incidentally, because on average it makes the web much better, lighter and faster.) Of humans where various JS doesn’t run, due to having an older browser, a corporate proxy that blocks some things, a content blocker like uBlock Origin that incidentally blats your script, unreliable network conditions, and more things… well, that number is regularly quite a lot higher than 0.1%, often above 1%. As for something like the Statcounter tracker, which these specific stats are built from, their methodology is obviously stupidly broken and has been for many years: ad blockers will tend to block it. (uBlock Origin does by default, and I expect others to as well.) And that number is generally agreed to be well above 10% (some say as high as 40%, though I’m sceptical of that), and heavily overrepresents users of less common browsers like Firefox.
RheingoldRiver 4y ago
I'd add Firefox to that list; specifically, you shouldn't be using :has until Firefox implements it, and afaik it's not implemented in Firefox because it's still a Working Draft and not finalized. Chrome and Safari implemented it early, and without any vendor prefix, but the implementation details are still subject to change. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >you shouldn't be using :has until Firefox implements it, 97.23% of internet users do not care. If you are arguing to not use Working Draft mechanisms in production environments (and you probably are), yes you have a point. Better safe than sorry, it's called a Working Draft for a reason. But if you are arguing to not use something because Firefox (and only Firefox) does not support it, you are going to have a fun time trying to convince most webdevs to care about just 2.77% of all internet users.

2h 4y ago

The fact that most browsers aggressively push or even force updates should not be used as a justification for this. You're essentially saying "I want to use this months old API, and fuck you if you still have a browser from last year." People used to respect some amount of backward compatibility.

crazygringo 4y ago
Browsers used to not auto-update. There's no reason to "respect" backwards compatibility in an inherently online product that auto-updates. There's nothing ideological here, it's just about being practical.
- 2h 4y ago
  not sure about Chrome, but you can turn off update on Firefox. I do this, and for good reason. I dont like the constant churn of browser UI moving around and changing every few months. So users in that situation should not be punished by web devs who only support the bleeding edge browser versions.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    Then that's on you. When 90% of users are on the newest version within a couple weeks, that's not "bleeding edge". It's mainstream. You're also opening yourself up to security vulnerabilities as you browse. If you turn off auto update, it's up to you to accept the consequences of both security risks and of sites breaking.
    - 2h 4y ago
      > Then that's on you. you say that like I am the only person who does this. > When 90% of users are on the newest version within a couple weeks, that's not "bleeding edge". [citation needed]
      - akarlsten 4y ago
        > you say that like I am the only person who does this. Essentially, yes: https://caniuse.com/usage-table https://caniuse.com/usage-table
        2h 4y ago
        2.7% of ALL browser usage is still a significant number, and certainly more than one person.
        superkuh 4y ago
        caniuse uses statscounter. It's really no surprise that statistics collected via javascript fail to include browsers that aren't executing it or don't have the modern JS "features" it uses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect
  - orhmeh09 4y ago
    Web devs should not punish such users, agreed. Who will pay extra on top of the hourly rate to address the needs you have? Especially when it's your problem with somebody else's software (Firefox) that would require this extra investment.
    - 2h 4y ago
      its not a problem with the software, its a problem with the web site adding features that only work with the newest browser, without any fallback for older browsers.
- jlokier 4y ago
  Fwiw, Safari doesn't auto-update beyond a certain point if you are not running the latest OS version from Apple, which may be for several good reasons, but your hardware being unable to run it is surely the top reason. And neither Firefox nor Chrome self-updated beyond a certain point on my few years old Android tablet, which is still generally very usable for browsing and YouTube. And the browser on one of my phones stopped updating, once the OS stopped getting upgrades, for about 2 years before I stopped using that phone (because there was nothing as good as it to upgrade to). Non-latest browsers are a small percentage of users, but it's a myth some site designers believe that all Chrome, Firefox and Safari installs auto-update to latest versions except where the user decided for themselves to block updates. To the owner of devices in generally great shape, that work fine with alnost all sites, sites designed with the bleeding-edge assunption can feel a bit "unnecessarily buy a new version of the exact same electronics with your copious spare cash and litter some e-waste landfill to view our content today!". Site designer's choice of course. But it's a myth that the current mainstrean browsers stay up to date by default for everyone who doesn't disable it. Some users can't update. This should particularly be in the awareness of designers wanting sites to be readable by people without much disposable income, or some accessibility issues.
Dalewyn 4y ago
In times past I would have fervently agreed with you. But in this day and age of browsers being Chrome and Chrome and Chrome and Chrome and Safari, all with forced autoupdates, there's little practical weight behind "browser <X> doesn't support it!". If Chrome supports it, the internet supports it whether any of us like it or not.

superkuh 4y ago

There's a lot of selection bias in collecting statistics with a package that'll only execute properly in the latest browsers and those running JS (as opposed to looking at webserver logs directly). I'll grant that vox probably only cares about serving content to people that can also see it's ads so it's a legitimate cut corner in this context. Their demographic is accessible eyes on ads and wallets, not people. If you want to serve content to human people and not just to eyes or wallets then at least be aware that most modern browser share statistics collected with JS don't reflect the reality you'd see in your webserver logs.

akarlsten 4y ago
I'd be very shocked if the percentage of all human users that have JS disabled is more than <0.1%. Even web crawlers and other bots can (and do) execute JS these days. I don't think the demographic is realistically relevant.
- chrismorgan 4y ago
  Some crawlers execute JS, but last I heard or checked even Bing’s crawler seldom did, and Google’s clearly tried to avoid doing so. Of humans that deliberately disable JS, certainly going to be under 0.1%. (I’m one of them, incidentally, because on average it makes the web much better, lighter and faster.) Of humans where various JS doesn’t run, due to having an older browser, a corporate proxy that blocks some things, a content blocker like uBlock Origin that incidentally blats your script, unreliable network conditions, and more things… well, that number is regularly quite a lot higher than 0.1%, often above 1%. As for something like the Statcounter tracker, which these specific stats are built from, their methodology is obviously stupidly broken and has been for many years: ad blockers will tend to block it. (uBlock Origin does by default, and I expect others to as well.) And that number is generally agreed to be well above 10% (some say as high as 40%, though I’m sceptical of that), and heavily overrepresents users of less common browsers like Firefox.

RheingoldRiver 4y ago

I'd add Firefox to that list; specifically, you shouldn't be using :has until Firefox implements it, and afaik it's not implemented in Firefox because it's still a Working Draft and not finalized. Chrome and Safari implemented it early, and without any vendor prefix, but the implementation details are still subject to change. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

Dalewyn 4y ago
>you shouldn't be using :has until Firefox implements it, 97.23% of internet users do not care. If you are arguing to not use Working Draft mechanisms in production environments (and you probably are), yes you have a point. Better safe than sorry, it's called a Working Draft for a reason. But if you are arguing to not use something because Firefox (and only Firefox) does not support it, you are going to have a fun time trying to convince most webdevs to care about just 2.77% of all internet users.