Many devs are out of touch with the world where people can't afford a new one.
I don't buy the security argument either, it's often just information access which is limited.
It takes great skill and effort to do this. Sure its a little batshit, but I applaud the level of perseverance that goes into it. I might have a different view if I was trying to ship something to a specific market segment in a hurry. However I'm not, and it pleases me immensely to see people do such silly[1] (and I mean this with the greatest of respect) things.
[1] For reference, adding chamfers and geneva stripes under things like the main barrel, is utterly silly. However, should I be paying >£50k for a watch, I full expect that _every_ inch of that watch is going to be a masterpiece of finishing (reference: https://www.crownwatchblog.com/how-it-works/finishing-school...)
Due to the wide variety of scenarios and configurations I already have tested with, I think it would be more likely than not that I'd be able to complete my base features test script with few issues.
Your question is a perfect example of why I go so far with testing.
https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiven...
> A few years ago I was doing policy research in a housing benefits office in London
> ...a young woman sits on a hard plastic chair ...Clutched in her hands is a games console – a PlayStation Portable.
> ...She’s connected to the complementary WiFi and is browsing the GOV.UK pages on Housing Benefit
> The PSP’s web browser is – charitably – pathetic. It is slow, frequently runs out of memory, and can only open 3 tabs at a time.
> But the GOV.UK pages are written in simple HTML. They are designed to be lightweight and will work even on rubbish browsers. They have to. This is for everyone.
I'm 99% certain that the latter part of that is false. Personally the PSP's browser was about on par with, eh, IE7 or so, the last time I used it (circa 2013).
But heck... it even had Flash.
Do you mind if I ask what kind of stuff you’re maintaining where you see any traffic from these old browsers? Do you think it would ever be possible to transpile a site into some shared common set of syntax/features/whatever instead of making browser specific corrections? And what do you think about features like WebGL which are impossible to replicate on older browsers in a performant way?
I happened upon a great digital art exhibit at the MFA in Boston, and one of the rooms had several beige boxes with Windows 95 and Netscape 3.04Gold set up to exhibit older Web art in a time-accurate setting.
It was then that I realized how much I liked that particular browser, how much I enjoyed using it, and also how capable it was. So I tried to adjust for it, and by then I had tested under so many others, it wasn't even much work. After that came others, like Mosaic and OffByOne and even more obscure stuff, barely a blip on the radar in its day. It became a fun hobby, and something to be proud of.
A couple years ago, NYC had useful Web access kiosks which were than locked up over public outrage about outdoors people using them for porn. However, they allowed Google Translate, and I was able to both read and post to my site via that.
I had not foreseen the use case, but because I had tested for so many others, it worked. All around, I refer to this as the bending over backwards development model. Like the city bus, I work hard to accomodate everyone, and don't turn anyone away if I can help it. Except spammers, fuck them.
>Do you mind if I ask what kind of stuff you’re maintaining where you see any traffic from these old browsers?
I'm maintaining mostly text-based resources, some of them about technology and interesting to nerds and retro enthusiasts, otheres just general purpose, which I want to make accessible to as many as possible.
For example, when I conducted my first user studies with actual users of screen readers, NO ISSUES were encountered, even though I had not yet made any special adjustments for them.
>Do you think it would ever be possible to transpile a site into some shared common set of syntax/features/whatever instead of making browser specific corrections?
Yes, absolutely. JavaScript makes it very easy by being able to feature-check most things. Also, NoJS is something I already start out with, so it's not difficult to just skip past things like createElement if not supported.
Three biggest challenges I've encountered is no > character (Mosaic treats it as end of HTML comment), no ===, and no anonymous functions.
>And what do you think about features like WebGL which are impossible to replicate on older browsers in a performant way?
I haven't done WebGL, but one feature I have which requires relatively modern JS (think Presto and IE9) is in a separate feature-checked module, older browsers not currently supported.
Again, my goal is for basic feature support, in some cases requiring a skilled operator. For example, this particular feature (client-side cryptographic signatures) can be replicated with an external application.
You need not look far for a great example of progressive enhancement and the benefits it brings. HN has a couple of JS-only niceties, without which the site is still perfectly usable.