[exratione]

It has been the case for years now that you really have to include ad and tracking blockers for browsers in your testing process somewhere, even if it's just a manual run-through in the smoke test section. Though I think that more than that is needed; e.g. adblock-enabled pools in your Selenium grid.

You really have to start from the bottom up assuming that things are going to get blocked for some people and build in graceful degradation of performance:

https://www.exratione.com/2014/12/practice-defensive-javascr...

Though the problem in this article looks more in the way of something to be caught by a sufficiently well constructed QA process, followed by a bug filed with the ad blocker in question.

[victorhooi]

Do you really?

See, I don't agree with this - it's like saying as a site-owner, you need to cater to people who disable JavaScript, or who use Ghostery.

Sure, you can cater to them if you like (or if you think they're a sizeable portion of your audience). But if I was using one of those two, I certainly wouldn't go whine to a site owner and say "Your site doesn't work for me!". It's my choice to use those products.

Likewise for ad-blockers - sure, I use ad-blockers. But if a site breaks for me, I don't go whine to that site owner. I just choose to either disable the ad-blocker for that site (if the site has content I want), or I just don't frequent that site (if it doesn't).

Disabling JavaScript, or using an ad-blocker is an elective thing that some people choose to do (whether for paranoia, or because ads annoy them). It's not like say, accessibility for colour-blind people or people using a screen-reader, who can't really choose their disabilities. I have sympathy for people with disabilities (I myself am hard-of-hearing), however, I have less sympathy for people who disable JavaScript or use ad-blockers (Note that I myself use one - but if it breaks something, I debug it myself).

[humbledrone]

The problem is that the end user who has an ad blocker installed doesn't see a big "THIS FEATURE OF THE WEB SITE IS BROKEN BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN AD BLOCKER INSTALLED" message when things don't work. They just see things not work. Maybe a few of the more tech-savvy users will guess that their ad blocker caused the problem, but most users will just assume that your site is crappy.

If your site is monetized through something other than ads (e.g. purchases), it might be in your financial interest to make sure that your site works correctly even in the presence of a poorly-written ad blocker. Of course this depends on how many of your users are affected by the problem.

Now if your site is free, with no ads, then I can see how your philosophy could make sense.

[tcdent]

I don't believe you need to be particularly tech-savvy to observe that the ad blocker extension you installed breaks the Internet.

[userbinator]

...and that it does "break" sites, but most of the time in a good way.

[monort]

Can you intercept errors and display this banner if error is thrown and adblock is in use?

[rnovak]

The only time I think it makes fiscal sense to ignore a sizable portion of your potential user-base is when you're already making so much money that the potential income from those users would be negligible.

It seems that the average number of page-views for all sites that are ad-blocked is something like 9% (and on some sites up to 50%)[1].

would you really want to sacrifice a 9-50% of possible revenue?

[1]https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-percentage-of-Internet-use...

[TeMPOraL]

Or when the potential income from those users is less than expected expense coming from not ignoring them.