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.

There’s no test to be done there. Just respect web standards and do geoblock if you want to.

The issues I have are website pretending to be apps and apps that are SPAs for no reasons.

> Maybe you should try to care about something other than just your bottom line.

You can do so when your bottom line is healthy. Otherwise you go out of business. That’s business 101.

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.

For unsubscribe - yes.

Everything else - no.

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?

> Everything else - no.

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.

Yes, sure, but 5% includes stock firefox, zero modifications, zero plugins.

Might still be a business decision, but it's like saying "we'll drop any emails that indicate a mail client other than apple mail/gmail/outlook".

While not that strict, see how far you get hosting your own email as far as not being rejected or automatically classified as spam

And I'd include that as well: if your server rejects emails because of your spam-decisions, you can't claim "we've never received that email". Either you don't use email for any legally-binding communication ever, or spam-filtering is a you-problem, not an everyone-else-problem.

It's not surprising that the strongest protections always happen on the unsubscribe links, but not on the subscribe-links. That just needs to be fined out of existence, just like "you can order with one click, but you need 50 clicks and a three-hour-conversation to cancel".

I don’t understand the “automatic” here-yes, reputation takes time to build, but if you run your own mail server with SPF/DKIM/DMARC set up correctly why is the default posture “block it” before there’s any reputation?

Just like other cases, I won’t accept that it’s “just lazy” on the part of big tech companies. They clearly know how to adjust their internal view/reputation of a domain once it starts being used for “misbehaviour” and spam such that they start blocking it.

Thus they could clearly start by not doing so-and, maybe, they’re “really touchy” about domains with no initial “internal score” such that if a new domain pops up and starts spamming people they catch it fast. Its not necessary to break open Internet protocols, though, unless they want the breakage.

If that 5% is 90% of cost to provide the service, forget it. Nobody is going to do a Herculean task to support a niche user.

> and you are legally required

Where. It’s global internet we communicate via.

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.

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.

If you’re selling a SaaS app, you care more about the customer than you do about the user. The customer is the IT department.

For the longest, Amazon Connect’s - AWS hosted call center software - call flow builder only worked with Chrome.

Even for B2C users, using Chrome is not a deal breaker. If they are okay with using shitty Electron apps, they will be okay with using Chrome for Mac.

They solved their problem. No matter how upset you are about it, the remainder is your problem.

Though in this case it is legally their problem as unsubscribe links are protected by law in the US.