undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbtmiller7y ago0 comments

> A website that only works in Chrome is preferable to a website that does not exist

I think the only scenario where that's acceptable is experimental/nightly features that haven't yet made their way to the majority of browsers.

> Using a website is a privilege

Some would dispute that. My bank, for instance, doesn't have physical branches. Is it considered a privilege to access my funds via website?

0 comments

Aldo_MX7y ago

> My bank, for instance, doesn't have physical branches. Is it considered a privilege to access my funds via website?

Glad you made this question. I'm a customer from BBVA and years ago, when Opera recently launched its Chromium-based fork I got a nag: You're using an unsupported browser

I was infuriated: "How the f*ck are you targeting the new Opera?!?!?!?! I mean, even the user agent looks like Chrome, to display this nag you had to explicitly target the new Opera WTF?!?!?!"

Now I ask you the following question: Can you access your bank account with Lynx? Curl? Where do you draw the line between which browsers to support?

Where do you draw the line between telling a user "Use Chrome" or having the user to complain at your call center because the website broke specifically in Brave browser? (pretty unlikely but not unrealistic scenario)

Years ago many banks and government agencies even required you to install Java to access their service. So yeah, it is a privilege to access your funds in a non-supported mean, if you complain at their call center they'll probably tell you "just use Chrome", or "install the Android app", or a similar alternative. If a bank thinks it is a competitive advantage to let you access in Mosaic, then it will push their development team to support even Mosaic.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse