# Better copy for browser is "too old to work on this site"

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/better-copy-for-browser-is-too-old-to-work-on-this-site/232968>\
**Category:** UX\
**Created:** [July 15, 2022, 12:47pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/better-copy-for-browser-is-too-old-to-work-on-this-site/232968 "2022-07-15T12:47:08Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 7

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Falco](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/falco/32/179432_2.png) [@Falco](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Falco)\
**Post date:** [July 15, 2022, 2:42pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/better-copy-for-browser-is-too-old-to-work-on-this-site/232968/7 "2022-07-15T14:42:13Z")

</div>

One alternative to UA sniffing that matches a close (89 → 91) Firefox version is feature detecting `window.visualViewport`. Maybe we can switch to that? But then we still need to add a bypass for Safari 12.5 until January 😩

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/better-copy-for-browser-is-too-old-to-work-on-this-site/232968)._