Member Avatar for fromireland

Hi all - currently whenever I check how pages will look for users of different browsers, I open pages in Explorer, Chrome and Firefox to check everything looks ok for users of these browsers. But I wonder if this is sufficient and maybe if there are other browsers that I should check regularly for compatibility issues - any thoughts?

  • 4 Contributors
  • 4 Replies
  • 101 Views
  • 14 Hours Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by RoyalElite96

Dani AI

Generated

As started, a quick round in the main desktop browsers is a sensible baseline. The community pointers in this thread (thanks to for the reference and for calling out code-level checks) are helpful, but for reliable, repeatable QA adopt a measured process: prioritize what your users actually use, test core journeys, and automate where it saves time.

A compact, practical workflow:

  • Pull real usage data and decide a support matrix (browser + major version + OS + breakpoints).
  • Prioritize a few critical flows (login, forms, checkout, navigation) and test them across that matrix.
  • Check feature compatibility with a feature database like Can I Use and prefer feature detection + polyfills (see Modernizr or polyfill services) instead of brittle user-agent sniffing.
  • Use browser devtools for responsive checks and local debugging, but confirm important cases on real devices or a cloud device farm such as BrowserStack for older OS/browser combos you cannot reproduce locally.

Add automation and accessibility early: visual-regression tools catch unintended layout shifts, CI-run smoke tests prevent regressions, and simple accessibility checks (keyboard navigation, semantic HTML, color-contrast) save rework later. Document the chosen support cutoff and why it exists so stakeholders understand trade-offs.

Quick checklist to carry forward: base decisions on analytics, test the user journeys that matter, prefer feature-based fixes with polyfills, validate visually on real devices or cloud, automate recurring checks, and include basic accessibility tests. This gives better coverage than ad-hoc manual checks and keeps testing effort proportional to user impact.

Recommended Answers

All 4 Replies

Member Avatar for almostbob

I heard my name,

these standard test beds may assist you http://analyze.websiteoptimization.com/authenticate.php?url=http://www.yoursite.com&/ Speed tweaks

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yoursite.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0 html check

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yoursite.com&profile=css21&usermedium=all&warning=1&lang=en CSS check

handheld

other browsers
many problems (if present) will show
serious code errors in the w3c validator sites will produce blankscreens in browsershots

Valid code does not ensure the site will work ...
Invalid code ensures the site will not work ...
.. in all browser OS combinations

not all layouts work in handheld devices
strictly code based, you understand your content more than I would

& thanks, I NEVER intended to be nice

Edited by almostbob because: n/a
Member Avatar for urtrivedi

I was just giving credits nothing special.

Member Avatar for RoyalElite96

I use Firefox and IE commonly since they are used the most.
But it is always good to see you're site Opera, Safari and Chrome.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.