Serving a website is different than serving food or providing safety features. Web design can use progressive enhancement and detect available features to use as they are available.

With a website, you can have the "real" layout, but when someone is blocking your JS, you can fallback and still provide content.

We won't get every mobile application working on old browsers, but we can offer something to the end user. Even a page that lets them know they are missing out.

But CSS Nesting? We can have that and a fallback.

▲

thesuitonym an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is webdevs don't do that. They say "98% is fine" and then don't program any fallback, or worse, actively block users that don't meet 100% compatibility.

	▲	phillipcarter an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Probably because that extra 2% (or whatever figure) isn’t terrible valuable in the first place. Sometimes the best answer is “they’ll need to update their stuff”.

▲

anoneng an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The whole premise of the article is fallacious analogies and mixed metaphors.

Yes a restaurant that poisons 2% of its customers is a bad restaurant. A restaurant that has nothing for people who are strict kosher, strict halal, strict vegan, or have severe multiple food allergies is not a bad restaurant. There may be 5% of people who simply can’t eat there because the kitchen cooks pork and there’s peanut shells on the ground but their idiosyncratic requirements don’t dictate the experience of the other 95%. Or 90%, or what have you.