Th e Dangers of Backwards Compatibility

Working on data collected from the Middle Ages, there are still those who bang
on about Netscape 4. “Does it work on Netscape 4? Because Netscape 4’s really
important. It has to work in Netscape 4.”
It’s the most infamous of the “backwards compatibility” arguments, but it’s also
the best example of taking backwards compatibility too far.The first step on judging whether you should accommodate a browser is the
number of people who use it. The second step is judging to what extent you have
to compromise a web design to accommodate that browser.
Only a tiny fraction of a percentage of people now use Netscape 4. But even
though it could be accommodated (a tiny percentage is still a percentage, after
all), it’s not worth it.
A confused sage once said “The pinnacle of good web design is a web design
that works on all browsers.”
Piffle.
Yes, a web design should work on as many browsers as possible, but at what cost?
Bending over backwards to accommodate old browsers will be to the detriment
of those who use newer browsers. What you lose by accommodating old browsers
are the practical benefits of web standards, mentioned above. Wave goodbye to
flexibility, lighter pages, increased accessibility, heightened usability, and lower
maintenance. You are going to lose more visitors through lack of optimization
than you are going to gain through the accommodation of obscure antiques.
The content of a well-structured HTML document should still be completely
accessible on older browsers—those that do not understand CSS or those that
are tricked into ignoring it (see “Applying CSS” in Chapter 1) will simply render
the HTML in the browser’s default style. The design may be lost, but the functionality
won’t be.