@denodell@mastodon.social
The same thing happened with Internet Explorer in the 2000s. When developers built for IE, sites broke elsewhere, and standards compliance became secondary to just making it “work in IE.” We spent years digging out of that hole.
Funny, when I had to build a site around 2010, my read-the-manual-centric workflow resulted in the opposite observation: Everything works, while IE requires a workaround.
It is obviously the same phenomenon, but when you flip the narrative, the most popular browser is suddenly the broken outlier.
There is one thing the article does not discuss though: While it is a big issue that they don't test on multiple browsers, their biggest failing is that they designed their site in a way that it does not degrade gracefully.
HTML is written with fault tolerance in mind. Unknown tag? Ignore or just treat it as plain text. Unclosed tag? Just continue on best effort. Half of the document is missing? Just show the half that actually arrived.
Would the site be a bit broken? Yes. Would it still be mostly usable? Also yes.
Same goes for CSS. Even if it doesn't arrive, your site should be usable (albeit, ugly) with HTML alone.
The strictest part is JavaScript, and it is a very permissive language as well. There also exist transpilers that can transpile bleeding-edge JavaScript into old JavaScript for compatibility.