Best viewed with any browser.

We've all seen too many Web sites that were obviously done by people who thought all their viewers would fit a certain profile – and if they didn't, then that was the viewer's fault, not the developer's. Oh, the pages would display useful content – if you're using the same version of the same browser that the developer was, or if you don't mind downloading megabytes of Flash or Java content that didn't really improve the user experience at all. Maybe they even used Flash for all their menus and navigation. (That's a great way to guarantee that search engines like Google ignore your site, by the way.)

Or perhaps they just had huge pages, with 1996-era tables controlling the layout – so everything was lined up pixel-perfect, but the user had to download a few hundred kilobytes before he saw anything, and search-engine rankings were, to put it charitably, not what might have been hoped for.

Some sites do support different browsers – they have one set of pages for Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 and later, one for MSIE 5, one for IE 6, and one for everything else. So adding a new page to those sites is much more difficult (read: expensive) than it "should" be, because that site chose to address the differences in browsers by developing (and debugging) essentially parallel sites. Maintaining those is even more fun – did this new feature or content get added to all the versions? Does everybody see the same pricing? Fun stuff...not!