3 ms·

No. But you might be misguided if you are incompetent to do it right, with incremental enhancement based on available features/resources. But then you will als

No. But you might be misguided if you are incompetent to do it right, with incremental enhancement based on available features/resources. But then you will also be incompetent to do it right with UA sniffing, which is even harder and require more maintenance to keep the list up-to-date. That's the obtuse thought process on how you get the garbage google just showed us.

acdha 3y ago
This level of condescension isn’t helpful, especially as you’re wrong to make such an absolute assertion rather than describing the right or wrong reasons to use a tool. UA sniffing should be a last resort but there have been times where browsers have claimed to support something but had hard to detect bugs and the cleanest way to handle it was to pretend the feature detection failed on those older browsers. This is increasingly rare – the last time I had to do it was for Internet Explorer – but I would not take a bet that nobody will ever have a need for it again. As an example, I recently had to deal with an exception to a TLS 1.2 requirement because while almost all of our traffic is from modern user agents, there was a group of blind users with braille displays using Android KitKat which defaults to only supporting a maximum of TLS 1.1 and “go buy an expensive new device” isn’t an appropriate response even though you might be entirely comfortable saying that random internet crawlers getting an error is okay.
- 1oooqooq 3y ago
  You proved my (overly condescending) point. You either support older TLS or you don't. Do not try to fine tune it to one known audience. You just locked everyone that is not in the sample you just whitelisted(!) out of your service. But you don't know about them, so no harm? If you think one use case for tls1.1 is OK for one use case, just accept you support it. Same for every thing else. Every time you use UA sniff, you are doing it wrong. not matter how smart you think you are. You are not. It's just a momentary feel good because you are oblivious to everything else. Just like you felt good when you blocked tls1.1 before knowing of those blind users. Now you felt good allowing those blind users because you still don't know about another group that you might learn tomorrow or never, because you are blocking them :)
  - acdha 3y ago
    That not proving anything other than that you missed the point that the real world doesn’t always have simple solutions. Sometimes you have to do things which are a bit messy as part of a phased transition and it’s important to know what tools you have available to do so.
    - 1oooqooq 3y ago
      How did you find out about the blind users? did your excellent testing work find it? No. You screwed up and someone complained. Now extrapolate your arrogant incopetence to your entire user base. How many people do you think you are screwing over that didn't bother to complain and instead just moved away?

acdha 3y ago

This level of condescension isn’t helpful, especially as you’re wrong to make such an absolute assertion rather than describing the right or wrong reasons to use a tool. UA sniffing should be a last resort but there have been times where browsers have claimed to support something but had hard to detect bugs and the cleanest way to handle it was to pretend the feature detection failed on those older browsers. This is increasingly rare – the last time I had to do it was for Internet Explorer – but I would not take a bet that nobody will ever have a need for it again. As an example, I recently had to deal with an exception to a TLS 1.2 requirement because while almost all of our traffic is from modern user agents, there was a group of blind users with braille displays using Android KitKat which defaults to only supporting a maximum of TLS 1.1 and “go buy an expensive new device” isn’t an appropriate response even though you might be entirely comfortable saying that random internet crawlers getting an error is okay.

1oooqooq 3y ago
You proved my (overly condescending) point. You either support older TLS or you don't. Do not try to fine tune it to one known audience. You just locked everyone that is not in the sample you just whitelisted(!) out of your service. But you don't know about them, so no harm? If you think one use case for tls1.1 is OK for one use case, just accept you support it. Same for every thing else. Every time you use UA sniff, you are doing it wrong. not matter how smart you think you are. You are not. It's just a momentary feel good because you are oblivious to everything else. Just like you felt good when you blocked tls1.1 before knowing of those blind users. Now you felt good allowing those blind users because you still don't know about another group that you might learn tomorrow or never, because you are blocking them :)
- acdha 3y ago
  That not proving anything other than that you missed the point that the real world doesn’t always have simple solutions. Sometimes you have to do things which are a bit messy as part of a phased transition and it’s important to know what tools you have available to do so.
  - 1oooqooq 3y ago
    How did you find out about the blind users? did your excellent testing work find it? No. You screwed up and someone complained. Now extrapolate your arrogant incopetence to your entire user base. How many people do you think you are screwing over that didn't bother to complain and instead just moved away?