You missed the point completely, though - you should not expect every user to have a shiny updated browser in a shiny new machine using your website, and blaming them if they don’t.
If you want your website being able to be used by most of users, you better cover all use cases. That includes providing non-js fallbacks. Not doing that and blaming the users instead is just ridiculous.
Braille interpreters (think a row of nubs that raises up the relevant letter as it “reads” the page) used to have issues with some webpages unless you accessed them via text based browsers. No idea if they still struggle as much but text based browsing will always have a function and place
Well, if we’ re following my logic, like you claim, then it depends on why the page is failing to load in Firefox: Are you using an outdated version of Firefox or on an outdated system? Is Firefox missing major functionality? Has your admin disabled major functionality in Firefox? Won’t some part of the website load in Firefox and if so, why? Are you using assistive technology in Firefox and if so, is it broken, misconfigured, or does the website not follow best practice?
If it is for another reason, then it obviously depends on that reason
Nono, you expect people to use the most used versions of the tools. Firefox has such a low usage that using the “Firefox version” of the “browser” tool can be interpreted as using an “outdated tool”. You clearly don’t, and neither do I, but some people put the line in a different place than you do and I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s their fault for it.
Sure, for webpages where the objective is to have advanced functionality I do get it, but for news/blog posts, documentation, government pages that should be as robust as possible… There are paces where accessibility of “outdated” tools must be considered.
According to your logic, I can’t blame you for believing that “news/blog posts, documentation, government pages […] should be as robust as possible”, but you also can’t blame anyone else for interpreting objectives and functionality differently, and drawing the line elsewhere. Your post is a rhetorical suicide, and there is no point continuing this line of argument
You missed the point completely, though - you should not expect every user to have a shiny updated browser in a shiny new machine using your website, and blaming them if they don’t.
If you want your website being able to be used by most of users, you better cover all use cases. That includes providing non-js fallbacks. Not doing that and blaming the users instead is just ridiculous.
Braille interpreters (think a row of nubs that raises up the relevant letter as it “reads” the page) used to have issues with some webpages unless you accessed them via text based browsers. No idea if they still struggle as much but text based browsing will always have a function and place
So, if a webpage fails to load of Firefox it’s our fault for not using Chrome? Following your logic.
Well, if we’ re following my logic, like you claim, then it depends on why the page is failing to load in Firefox: Are you using an outdated version of Firefox or on an outdated system? Is Firefox missing major functionality? Has your admin disabled major functionality in Firefox? Won’t some part of the website load in Firefox and if so, why? Are you using assistive technology in Firefox and if so, is it broken, misconfigured, or does the website not follow best practice?
If it is for another reason, then it obviously depends on that reason
Nono, you expect people to use the most used versions of the tools. Firefox has such a low usage that using the “Firefox version” of the “browser” tool can be interpreted as using an “outdated tool”. You clearly don’t, and neither do I, but some people put the line in a different place than you do and I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s their fault for it.
Sure, for webpages where the objective is to have advanced functionality I do get it, but for news/blog posts, documentation, government pages that should be as robust as possible… There are paces where accessibility of “outdated” tools must be considered.
According to your logic, I can’t blame you for believing that “news/blog posts, documentation, government pages […] should be as robust as possible”, but you also can’t blame anyone else for interpreting objectives and functionality differently, and drawing the line elsewhere. Your post is a rhetorical suicide, and there is no point continuing this line of argument