Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

This page details the browsers and versions that we support for all the web pages and applications which we produce.

We have documented the standards we use for writing web pages.

We provide two levels of browser support: 'full support' and 'degraded support'.

Full support is given to all browsers with more than 10% of the total number of visits from external users in a given month. You can find this information in Google Analytics.


Browser usage stats are available from the Daily Reports from Analog, and Google Analytics (external traffic, internal traffic)

Layouts, designs and functionality must be checked in all these browser versions:




Latest stable release on Windows

Latest stable release on Mac

Latest stable release on Android

EdgeLatest stable release on Windows


Latest stable release

Internet Explorer



Latest stable release on Mac

Latest stable release on iPhone and iPad

In Google Analytics Safari 5.0.x and above appears as 533.16 and above

Degraded support is given to edge-case browsers where the total number of external visits may be below 10% but is still a significant number. All the information provided on the page should be accessible but it is not a requirement for the layout to work perfectly. If there is specific page functionality that does not work in these browsers then it should not be enabled and you should apply the rules for "Dynamic content/JavaScript" as documented below.

Layouts, designs and functionality must be checked in all these browser versions:



Internet Explorer

7, 8

You can check IE7 using the Legacy Browser Terminal Server.

UI testing benchmarks

With the advent of we have devised a set of tests based on browser and screen resolution combinations (including mobile).

Mobile devices

Other than devices specifically mentioned in the 'full support' table above, we provide no official support for any mobile devices, regardless of OS or browser.

Exception: We have some pages targeted directly for mobile devices, and these have been written to render in the WebKit browsers on iOS and Android which were available at that time.

Dynamic content/JavaScript

JavaScript should be used to enhance pages rather than being the only way to access page functionality - applications and pages must work fully in the absence of JavaScript; all visible content and functions should be operational.

For the same reason, a page visitor shouldn't be able to click on a button or link that does nothing!

Other browser support documents

  • No labels


  1. Unknown User (ma0np)

    Do these browser type support and testing requirements extend to University hosted and maintained web applications, that are hosted outside your team too? I'm thinking Moodle and SAMIS in particular.

    1. Unknown User (pgw22)

      Good question (smile)

      We would advise that wherever possible these standards are adhered to since they come out of the statistics of actual site visitors, but note that they're focussed on the visits from external users and the stats from the average Moodle user may well be different.

      We'll be working with the SAMIS team in the near future on some of their web apps and we'd try and apply these standards since a large proportion of users are external (registration etc.).

  2. Unknown User (lm317)

    Current differences in font rendering require separate testing of Chrome Windows and Mac. I've updated the table to reflect this.

    Also, we should pull the edge case testing of IE 7&8 now that we have adopted a platform (Foundation 5) that does not support them.


  3. As previously discussed I think we ought to show a little consideration to adding MS Edge to our list of 'active' browsers.

    A quick review of the last 12 months stats reveal that Edge garnered 39,099 sessions (0.38% of the total visits both internal and external) to the UoB site. Given that Windows 10 and Edge were only released in July I think this shows a fair rate of adoption in the 6 months since it was launched. I think we can safely say it won't be going away any time soon now that it is the default browser on W10.

    Although we don't have a Windows 10 machine with Edge in the office, a Vagrant box with W10/Edge is available through


    1. Unknown User (pgw22)

      As we said the other day, that sounds fine. Please add it in. Given MS's announcement the other day about browser support, could you also dig out the numbers for IE 7,8 and 9? I'd like to be able to drop 7 from legacy, and move 9 to legacy, if the numbers support it.

  4. Between 31 Oct 2014 and 30 Nov 2015 the various versions of IE accounted for 2,385,508 sessions (21.9% of the overall total).

    Of those (roughly) 2.4 million sessions the version breakdown is as follows:

    IE versionNo. of sessionsPercentage of total sessions

    The majority of the IE7 sessions are internal and almost all are requests for either the staff or student home pages.

    It looks as though the majority of the IE7 sessions are most likely IE8 in compatibility mode. 

  5. It might be instructive to split the time period slightly - IE11 was deployed into gold image for deployment Sept 2014 to University AD computers, ~97% are upgraded to IE11 now and rest should be done by Jan apart from a handful that need it for a business reason e.g. compatibility testing.

  6. Thanks for the feedback Mark. I think that we probably need to work on the basis that there are a decent number of machines accessing the Uni site internally using IE8/9. In the majority of cases my suspicion is that most of these users are not aware they have IE7 compatibility mode active.

    Looking at the stats we have to hand it appears there is a good case to support Phil's desire to bump IE9 down to legacy support and remove IE7 altogether. 

  7. In terms of support - Internal users of IE8/9/10 need to be tracked down and upgraded as a security risk, catering for them with specially delivered web content is sending a mixed message.

  8. We do not intend to deliver different web content to specific browsers or versions. It's simply to ensure that our browser support is up-to-date and that we are testing our content against the browsers our site visitors are actually using.

  9. I'm trying to save you work by limiting the browsers you have to support internally - I'm actively chasing the IE8/9/10 internal users to eliminate them and doing my best to inform you of this given that your stats were averaged across a period of change.  Your notes indicated that you were potentially catering for a market that should be removed going forward.  Feel free to continue to support whatever you feel appropriate.