[throwaway35784]

As with all things it's a cost benefit analysis. It costs money to support old browsers and a lot of money doesn't come from them do do the math.

I was trying to buy movie tickets online the other day.I tried Firefox then Firefox without ad blockers, then ie, then edge, then chrome on two different desk top machines.

Then my gf bought them on her phone browser.

Thanks mobile first development. How much money must you be costing your adherents?

[userbinator]

It costs money to support old browsers

One of the arguments the article makes is that it doesn't --- thanks to the backwards-compatible nature of the Web, anything that works on an older browser is likely to continue working on the newer one.

[denkmoon]

So I have to design and build for the older browser then hope that the newer browser handles it properly, whilst also constraining myself from using any newer functionality?

That seems backwards.

[userbinator]

The article is saying that you don't "build for the older browser" --- or indeed any browser specifically, but instead start off with basic HTML and adding just enough markup and styling around the content as you desire. Maybe you'll later tweak the site to look exactly the way you want in a specific browser, but this process means that even if it doesn't look perfect, other browsers will likely be able to use the site too.

[throwaway35784]

No. You have to build on the new browser, because that's what is on your new computer, then hope it runs on the old computer with the old browser.

[throwaway35784]

The article is wrong. It absolutely does cost money and time to test on old browsers. You need multiple computers or vms set up. You don't build websites using old computers running ie6. so you have load the site on that old browser after you write the code.

It's an obvious fact to anyone who does front end web development.

[walshemj]

Ah the mystery that is cinema websites - they always seem to be so bad. VUE's website in the uk is a complete disaster.