The developer of mini.css addressed these concerns about IE support in a Hashnode story[0], raising some pretty compelling arguments about why it can't be done, not fully at least.

[0] https://hashnode.com/post/the-legacy-support-conundrum-or-wh...

Have you used a mobile connection in the subway lately? That's a key use-case, I think.

They say that they support older browsers and, from testing it lately, I haven't seen anything odd in IE 10 and 11, except the way images scale in the card media sections, which isn't really an issue in my eyes.

Maybe not today, but in a few months or a year, possibly. IE is dying and Edge is taking its place. Supporting IE just makes maintanance more difficult, doesn't it?

Not if you want to design a site for any of the millions of government organizations out there who still require support for IE9+

If only there was some sort of standard library for government organizations to use [0].

[0] https://standards.usa.gov/

As long as they double their budgets that's fine.

Older browsers like IE are supported, just not fully. So they say at least...

Faster loading times on mobile come to mind.

The semantics are reasonably outdated, but I wonder if part of this is due to certain things like using <section> might affect content placement and/or nesting (section classes are used only for cards so what if a card is inside a <section>?).

They state that older browsers and versions might be supported. I've tried this in IE 11 and it works like a charm, except for a couple of minor features. The diagram is the browsers that are "fully" supported.

There's no such thing as 'might' be supported. Either they're supported or they aren't. They might work on those browsers, right now, but if they stop working or if there are bugs and the library makers aren't supporting them, then they stop working for good.

I think that dropping the material design and going for a new style was the right decision. What do you think?