3 ms·
This is so wildly wrong it hurts. As soon as that one important website (to your user) breaks, they will switch browsers. Just deciding that you don't want to
by hypeatei 2y ago
This is so wildly wrong it hurts. As soon as that one important website (to your user) breaks, they will switch browsers.
Just deciding that you don't want to implement >50% of web specs "for simplicity" and expecting that to be a winning strategy is very HN.
- hollowturtle 2y agoTo me it’s not wrong at all, why won’t a simpler browser with a “modern mode” rendering succeds? There is no need for that browser to support the space jam website, who really cares? Imo thinking that people need quirks mode because they need to visit old website it’s very HN.
- IggleSniggle 2y agoIt's not that at all. Imagine some popular website is relying on some weird quirk but it works out in modern browsers. They don't even know they are broken, or in what way, and first discovering the issue and then investing in fixing the issue for <1% of readers is a very difficult cost to justify.
- timeon 2y agoIn context we are in [0], is space jam website really the problem? Old space jam website is just bunch of tables and images. It is the "modern mode" that is bloated. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40748071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40748071
- sanitycheck 2y agoThe "very HN" thing for me is assuming a "winning strategy" has to be mass adoption. There's room for a smaller web full of nerds and geeks, we had that before and maybe we can have it again.
- immibis 2y agoIndeed, that's why we are discussing on HN, not on Reddit. Exclusion as a design choice.