If I have a process that works for 95% of the people, why should I care about outliers who use Linux behind a VPN on a heavily customized version of Firefox?
Maybe you should try to care about something other than just your bottom line. I'm sorry if this sounds mean, but this attitude just turns the web into a giant monoculture because you can't be bothered to care. It actually ends up hurting everybody in the long run. Look how long we were trapped with IE6. Amazing how people forget history so quickly.
Everyone has limited resources. As a for profit company, the focus has to be on your bottom line. How many resources should a company use for some obscure corner case when the user can make changes?
Of course accessibility is important - ie screen reader compatibility.
A typical testing matrix in the US would be
- Safari for iOS
- Chrome for desktop and Android
- maybe Safari for desktop or you just tell Mac users to use Chrome
- Firefox if you have the time. But if not, no big deal.
We are definitely not going to test for a highly customized Firefox on Linux running over a VPN.
By that logic, why care about accomodating anyone with a disability? Your site works for 95% of people, why care about those who need to use screen readers?
And before you say "that's their choice," you're the one who is breaking the functionality. Nothing about using a VPN or linux or Firefox creates any problem for TCP/IP or https.
One because it’s the law and two because the disabled can’t just make a choice and install Chrome.
However, while the site creator does have to meet the disabled halfway, the disabled person is responsible for having whatever type of equipment they need to make it work - ie screenreaders
If your website is full of divs generated by JS that are full of aria tags that make no sense, those tools don't have a chance. Most websites act this way as well. Even Facebook used to lock people out of their messages if you couldn't use a mouse, at least in the last time I checked (infinite feed + no way to skip feed via tab -> can't reach right panel).
Just do your job right. Not saying you should test some unique Firefox config but at least the default version is to be tested.
Hell, I've seen people here indicating that they just tell desktop Mac users to "install Chrome". Such carelessness is bad for business. Web development sure could raise its bar.
Because they are standards compliant and you aren't, and you are legally required to provide an unsubscribe service or whatever without undue barriers around it.
But if I am using standards and they have an ad blocker that blocks some of the functioning of my site, am I also required to test my site against that?
I'd include _everything_ important in the "yes" category. If I cannot access the customer panel to update settings or notify them of a bug that is affecting me because I'm using Firefox ("works for 95% of users"), they're just not keeping up their end of the contract.
Remember, 95% excludes everything but chromium/webkit-engines.
Every SaaS company I’ve worked for has had a compatibility matrix where we say what we support. If we lost customers who were running a highly customized Firefox on Linux, so be it.
Every company decides which customers are worth going after.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if someone takes that argument to court.
One side of the argument is that Cloudflare places an undue burden. The other side of the argument is that without the CF protections, the service provider doesn't even have reason to believe the request is coming from a human being the law protects.