I don't understand why so many websites use user-agents to verify compatibility

[daemonspudguy]

It's never made sense to me. I've had a user-agent spoofer installer on my browsers for years now to get around the issue, whether it be websites not liking the fact I use Firefox, not liking the fact I use Linux, not liking the fact that the web browser I currently use is based on Firefox ESR (yes, really), or a whole bunch of other reasons. Changing your user-agent is trivial, and it's never been a way to verify anything. Maybe this is just me using my head again like you're apparently not supposed to do in modern web design.

[Moonchild]

They do it because it's easy, and no amount of advice on the Internet has done away with webmasters preferring an easy string comparison check over feature detection.

[RealityRipple]

It's not always the case, but often, such distinctions are made depending on if the code to serve or run a script is client-side or server-side. Server-side checks are usually done on the initial request, before any client-side script to check for the existence of a function can be run. What's served is manipulated to fit the expected client that sent the agent. The thought is in the right place; don't send the client things that it won't be able to run anyway. It's just based on a bad premise.

[Moonchild]

don't send the client things that it won't be able to run anyway.

While that's a good idea in principle, it's not practical when you go into the intricacies of which version/iteration of which browser you're targeting. That kind of thing works for overall file support, maybe, and I am still a big proponent of the content negotiation idea in that respect (where the client sends capabilities with its request, prior to the server sending anything) but that kind of fine granularity on moving target specs in JS simply can't be done server-side -- which is literally why this whole "only these 5 browsers and only the latest version on only these O.S.es" discrimination came into being. It's just a Bad Idea™ to try and do that server-side, even more so because to do it correctly, one has to maintain a long and detailed list of all possible web clients and versions leading once again to "your browser is not supported" if webmasters don't want to maintain their site that way.
There are flexible solutions in JS for this kind of thing that don't discriminate - or mis-detect based on arbitrary strings - but people are just not using them because anyone can write a string comparison in 5 minutes and call it a day.

[Pentium4User]

They do it because it's easy, and no amount of advice on the Internet has done away with webmasters preferring an easy string comparison check over feature detection.

And most of them only care about Chrome (and the derivates), Safari and maybe Firefox. They are not interested to provide compatibility.

[Moonchild]

They do it because it's easy, and no amount of advice on the Internet has done away with webmasters preferring an easy string comparison check over feature detection.

And most of them only care about Chrome (and the derivates), Safari and maybe Firefox. They are not interested to provide compatibility.

The thing is... it could be hands-off if they would settle on standards and work within the confines of what is established in them. You wouldn't need to target individual browsers, just an overarching compatibility against those standards. But since there's still a "browser war" because of money, this will remain a pipe dream.
We had some semblance of this in the past, actually. the good old HTML4 days.

[moonbat]

You wouldn't need to target individual browsers, just an overarching compatibility against those standards.

The great thing about standards is that there's so many of them.

[RealityRipple]

[Moonchild]

Wrong approach. If standards conflict, solve the conflicting issue (you know, by putting your heads together and deciding which behaviour is most desired), and not "just go off and create another distro standard without saying anything" and hoping it somehow gets more traction than the "competition". It's one of the places where democracy would really solve everything.
But that's more wishful thinking, since people would rather have conflict than cooperation.

[frostknight]

There are flexible solutions in JS for this kind of thing that don't discriminate - or mis-detect based on arbitrary strings - but people are just not using them because anyone can write a string comparison in 5 minutes and call it a day.

So basically its a, I want to be lazy excuse.

This is why I detest the modern web. Its all based on either money, stupid egos and laziness.

It isn't about putting the best standards forward.

Would be nice if the web was ripped out of the shackles of these rich a-holes.

IE, True net neutrality should be put into place where the standards put into place is based on democracy not greed or selfishness and especially not egocentric people.

[Eduardolucas1]

There are flexible solutions in JS for this kind of thing that don't discriminate - or mis-detect based on arbitrary strings - but people are just not using them because anyone can write a string comparison in 5 minutes and call it a day.

So basically its a, I want to be lazy excuse.

This is why I detest the modern web. Its all based on either money, stupid egos and laziness.

It isn't about putting the best standards forward.

Would be nice if the web was ripped out of the shackles of these rich a-holes.

IE, True net neutrality should be put into place where the standards put into place is based on democracy not greed or selfishness and especially not egocentric people.

Democracy (true democracy) means indirect (representative) or direct (participatory) inclusion of the most of the users who are able to exert their right (i.e knowledge and/or experience) into the process. For these guys, democracy means a part of the shareholders and CEOs playing together to decide things. The only way to fix that is antitrust and industrial regulation by the state, something that do not interest them and that many countries would refuse to do, some even if they asked.

[frostknight]

Democracy (true democracy) means indirect (representative) or direct (participatory) inclusion of the most of the users who are able to exert their right (i.e knowledge and/or experience) into the process. For these guys, democracy means a part of the shareholders and CEOs playing together to decide things. The only way to fix that is antitrust and industrial regulation by the state, something that do not interest them and that many countries would refuse to do, some even if they asked.

Yes... which is why those countries who refuse to do this, should be given the middle finger by every non-shareholder and/or citizen.

And if they refuse to do something, they should be banned from the office of power forever. Same with every human being who has power.

The shareholders should have their riches ripped from their hands for supporting data collection and/or monopolies on the web.

As of now, there is no way forward, to fix this though, I will agree with you there.

It would take a friggin uprising against antitrust bs. That's a long ways away.

Hopefully the planet doesn't die due to all the data collection centers wasting water, otherwise, yes, nothing will ever change.

I detest powerful people who are arrogant and think they should have a say in everything. The truth is, those same powerful people who think that deserve LITERALLY NOTHING OF VALUE.

This kind of stuff irritates me, as you probably can tell from my last sentence.

Anywho, venting seems to be all I can do currently.