When you say something is minimal, you are implying that what little you provide will also work. Which in this case is clearly not.

motherfuckingwebsite.com is more minimal and usable than these frameworks.

▲

hnlmorg 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> When you say something is minimal, you are implying that what little you provide will also work.

No you do not. You just saying it’s got very little code and/or very few features.

Support for older browsers might not be one of those features. Which means this minimal frameworks isn’t suited for the kind of projects where that kind of compatibility is a concern.

If you look outside of CSS (and particularly web development as a whole) you’ll find a plethora of minimal frameworks that intentionally make compatibility trade offs.

> Which in this case is clearly [does not work].

That’s a gross exaggeration and you know it.

▲

digital_af a day ago | parent | prev [-]

As you're mainly complaining about CSS layout features being used here:

For a long time we were forced to use the ugliest hacks imaginable to get to the nice (responsive, design-minimalist(!)) layouts we wanted, because CSS layout tools were utter archaic bs, for years on end, because browsers iterated so slowly.

Then things started speeding up, and we're getting to make better websites (and apps!) that are way easier to design (with the correct design theory equivalents), implenent (with less code) and easier to maintain (i.e., understand). And you're not missing out if you just keep your browser up to date.

I know it sucks if you're on an unsupported device that doesn't get any updates, fair.

But let's face it: 99% of the population is better off security-wise when we're not enabling them to run unpatched devices forever.

▲

potato-peeler a day ago | parent [-]

Security updates have nothing to do with level of support for css3 modules.

Much of the issues of layout were already solved more than 12 yrs back, ie when css3 became mainstream.

The issue is devs are unaware about different levels of css3 or just plain ignorant about it.

Are you aware about the different levels of css3? Are you even aware there are levels to css3? Why are these frameworks not listing them and simply saying that they comply with web standards? Which specific web standards do they comply?

Any new css3 feature should have a fallback if they say they comply to web standards, which these frameworks don’t add.

Basically you want to adopt latest w3c guideline but completely ignore wcag guidelines on accessibility - https://www.thewcag.com/principles/robust

Why should some population forced to suffer because of your ignorance. I am sorry if I am blunt, but your comment about polarising users is rude.

Which comes back to my main point, Devs are simply not educating themselves about the fundamentals of web design.

▲

ambigious7777 a day ago | parent [-]

I think its fine to target compatability with 99.9% on people with updated devices and not some random old 2020 safafi build

▲

abanana a day ago | parent | next [-]

To be fair on this particular point, talking about iOS Safari before version 14 isn't "some random old build". It depends on your own users, but I saw plenty of 6-year-old iPhone user agents in the web logs when dealing with a doctor's surgeries app.

	▲	a day ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

potato-peeler a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Even though I provided a direct link to wcag principles and guidelines, you still are too lazy to read.