[EFats]

A lot of people complain a lot that the default browser is unusable.
I've never had much issue with it and I claim that it's mostly down to crappy, non-standard compliant Web site design that is sucking up your info and serving up ads and generally just screwing around.
HTML5 test would seem to back that up...and no, the standard has not changed yet.

On this auspicious day, I hit up apolloinrealtime.org with my Z10. You can't get any slower here...yet this complicated site actually worked! A bit slow at times, yes but no problems with the images, clicking around, the audio stream with the real time counter and all. Given everything that is happening on this site, I find it hard to believe it is missing much functionality that any web site could possibly need.

This seems to be the same sort of crap that happened with HTML email back on BBOS7, there's a lot of HTML email that doesn't work, yet when I craft an email from Outlook with virtually every feature I can throw at it, my Bold rendered it perfectly.

Heck, this is why Microsoft threw in the towel with Edge as they just couldn't keep up with patching all the bad behaviour from the major Web sites. Don't blame BlackBerry, not too much wrong with the browser. Blame the web site developers...

[saint300]

I will second that. Native browser works amazingly well for me! And yes, I have read many negative comments about it, but honestly, I can't see any of these "problems" in my case.

[anon(10604127)]

Usually web developers use so-called polyfills and transpilers to convert their modern code into code that works also for older browsers. This is the reason why many websites still work. However, this drastically increases the amount of JavaScript code that is served by the websites, making them slower for everyone, also users of modern browsers. Because of that, more and more developers cut support for older browsers and polyfill/transpile less features. If you don't have issues with the native browsers, that is pure luck / the selection of web sites and services you use. Bigger companies are in general more reluctant to cut support for older browsers because they fear a decrease of revenue. Smaller sites are quicker when it comes to this decision. In general, supporting older browsers is one of the plagues for web developers because it makes their job much harder and prevents innovation (some great new features of newer browsers can't be used for years because they are not available in all browsers to be supported).

Posted via CB10

[anon(10604127)]

I claim that it's mostly down to crappy, non-standard compliant Web site design

Most websites are not fully standards-compliant, older or newer. I'd even argue that newer websites tend to be much more standards-compliant because they have to apply fewer hacks to be compatible with older browsers, and a modern developer's tool kit has so-called linters which check for and complain about non-standard-compliant code.
The only thing I have to agree to though is that the mass of ads and tracking has increased to an evil level. But that is not the web developers' fault (well, they could complain more or even reject implementing them). But mostly tracking / ads is a business decision, and developers have to add a "tag manager" which gives the control over tracking etc. out of their hands. Marketing people can then inject whatever code they want into websites, in a system completely outside of the accessible code written by web designers/developers.

Posted via CB10