[tux3]

>I do not consider a browser with site-modifying extensions to be a standard web browser

What do you consider a standard web browser?

If someone ships a browser with Tracking Protection (like Firefox), or with NoScript preinstalled (like Tor Browser), or with another adblocker preinstalled, is that a standard browser because the user didn't modify it?

Or is it based on the number of user. Is your standard browser really just Google Chrome, because Google has a lot of marketshare?

I ask, because I looked up the statistics, and they say between 25-45% of users have an ad blocker, depending on the country.

It seems pretty unfair to ignore your users completely, even if they wrote a long, detailed report. No?

[stavros]

Maybe he chooses to ignore non-paying users, which is fair. Hell, ignoring any kind of user is fair. Might not be a great business strategy, but it's his site.

[penultimatename]

I think most of Photopea's users would be using the free services. I don't see why a developer would want to bend over backwards to support users who aren't paying them, aren't viewing ads to support their usage/bandwidth costs, and are having an issue due to another piece of software they have installed.

It's like emailing an email provider asking why your desktop email client is displaying emails weird.

[IvanK_net]

A standard web browser is a browser, which runs a website according to web standards. If an extension e.g. replaces every image in a webpage with the image of Bill Gates, it is not a standard browser in my opinion, and users should not report it to me as a bug in my website.

[nybble41]

The web standards leave quite a bit up to the implementation. Support for scripting is completely optional, for example; a compliant browser is not obligated to load or run your JavaScript. Or to render images, for that matter—the standards do not exclude screen readers. If your site is unusable when scripts are disabled it's your site which is non-compliant, not the user agent. On general robustness grounds you would do well to ensure that your site continues to operate properly even when third-party resources are unavailable, including Google Analytics. After all, the script could fail to load because the server is down and not because it's being blocked by an extension.

Certainly it's not a bug (on your part) that the user agent rendered the page as the user directed, but that isn't the actual complaint. The issue is that the page is over-complicated and fragile, proving unfit for purpose when faced with the slightest deviation from the default behavior of the top two or three most popular web browsers.