this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026
25 points (63.4% liked)
JavaScript
2657 readers
20 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So if for any chance you can't use JS (outdated browser, outdated system, text-based browser, JS disabled by an admin, JS won't load, assistive technology) then... it's your fault?
Braille interpreters (think a row of nubs that raises up the relevant letter as it "reads" the page) used to have issues with some webpages unless you accessed them via text based browsers. No idea if they still struggle as much but text based browsing will always have a function and place
So, if a webpage fails to load of Firefox it's our fault for not using Chrome? Following your logic.
Well, if we’ re following my logic, like you claim, then it depends on why the page is failing to load in Firefox: Are you using an outdated version of Firefox or on an outdated system? Is Firefox missing major functionality? Has your admin disabled major functionality in Firefox? Won’t some part of the website load in Firefox and if so, why? Are you using assistive technology in Firefox and if so, is it broken, misconfigured, or does the website not follow best practice?
If it is for another reason, then it obviously depends on that reason
Nono, you expect people to use the most used versions of the tools. Firefox has such a low usage that using the "Firefox version" of the "browser" tool can be interpreted as using an "outdated tool". You clearly don't, and neither do I, but some people put the line in a different place than you do and I don't think it's fair to say it's their fault for it.
Sure, for webpages where the objective is to have advanced functionality I do get it, but for news/blog posts, documentation, government pages that should be as robust as possible... There are paces where accessibility of "outdated" tools must be considered.
According to your logic, I can't blame you for believing that "news/blog posts, documentation, government pages [...] should be as robust as possible", but you also can't blame anyone else for interpreting objectives and functionality differently, and drawing the line elsewhere. Your post is a rhetorical suicide, and there is no point continuing this line of argument
Or what if you don't have internet? Is it your fault you can't access the website?
Also, if your browser does not support latest TLS and does not have latest root certificates, it's your fault. /s
Let me load HTTP without the S if I want to.
No, that let's companies man-in-the-middle you.
ISPs literally couldn't help themselves inject ads and other scripts that lagged and broke everything on every website all to chase a few bucks.
HTTPS prevents them from doing that.