Browser Feature Availability Report

Introduction

This article is part of Browser Compatibility Test. Open the compatibility test tool to run WebGL, WebGPU, codec, and API probes in your current browser.

A browser feature availability report documents supported features, unsupported features, experimental capabilities, and deprecated gaps from a probe session.

Overview

A browser feature availability report summarizes every probe result from a compatibility session. It lists supported features with pass status, unsupported features with explicit failures, and notes experimental or flag-dependent capabilities detected during the run.

A browser feature availability report documents supported features, unsupported features, experimental capabilities, and deprecated gaps from a probe session.

Export JSON for diffing across browsers or text summaries for support tickets and release documentation.

Recommended upgrades become clear when reports show missing WebGL2, absent codecs, or blocked security APIs on target devices.

Release reviews go smoother when compatibility evidence is written down. A feature availability report captures every probe row, the session scope, and environment metadata in one artifact QA and support can trust.

Reports come directly from the browser compatibility test tool after a standard or full scope run. Quick scope suits developer spot checks, but release gates benefit from broader menus.

• ●Supported features with per-probe pass status
• ●Unsupported features with explicit fail rows and error context
• ●Experimental and flag-dependent capabilities in session notes
• ●Deprecated feature gaps for legacy browser planning

Supported, Unsupported, and Experimental Features

Supported features appear as pass rows with stable identifiers across exports. Unsupported features should include enough context that engineers know which subsystem failed without reproducing the session manually.

Experimental or flag-dependent capabilities deserve explicit notes in session metadata. WebGPU on preview channels is a common example where pass results should not be treated as production guarantees.

When reports show confusing patterns, hand them to browser capability diagnostics workflows that map failures to GPU policy, secure context, or codec licensing before escalating to application teams.

Key Formula

Reports are most useful when probe scope and category filter stay constant across browsers being compared.

Attach user agent and system spec metadata from the run page so reports remain interpretable months later.

Diff JSON exports between browser versions to spot regressions introduced by dependency upgrades rather than browser changes alone.

• ●Use consistent probe definitions across browsers
• ●Combine scores with qualitative failure notes
• ●Re-run after browser or driver updates

Step by Step

Apply these steps in order so compatibility results stay comparable across browsers and releases.

1. 1

   Run a full or standard scope

   Choose a probe menu that matches your release requirements before exporting.

2. 2

   Review the feature matrix

   Read pass and fail rows by category: graphics, media, and APIs.

3. 3

   Export structured JSON

   Save machine-readable output for automation, diffing, and QA archives.

4. 4

   Share text summaries

   Paste human-readable reports into tickets when JSON is not practical.

5. 5

   Archive per release

   Store reports alongside version tags so support can compare historical capability baselines.

Practical Examples

QA exports JSON from Chrome, Firefox, and Safari before each release. Diff tools highlight new failures introduced by a dependency upgrade.

A support engineer attaches a text summary to a ticket showing WebGL and IndexedDB failures, pointing to enterprise policy instead of application bugs.

QA archives JSON exports beside semantic version tags. Six months later, support compares a customer export to the release baseline and spots a new IndexedDB failure introduced in a minor update.

A product manager shares text summaries with stakeholders who do not read JSON. Graphics and codec sections still communicate risk without requiring engineering interpretation.

• ●Save probe JSON with each support ticket
• ●Map failures to visible fallbacks
• ●Review examples in sprint retrospectives

FAQ

FAQDoes the report certify browser compliance?

No. It documents feature detection results at a point in time, not official standards certification.

FAQShould I include quick scope reports in release gates?

Use standard or full scope for release documentation. Quick scope suits daily developer checks.

FAQCan I automate report collection?

Manual export is supported today. JSON format is designed for future CI integration patterns.

FAQWhat metadata should I attach?

Include user agent, probe scope, category filter, secure context status, and timestamp with every export.

FAQHow do I compare browsers fairly?

Use identical probe scope and filters on each browser, then diff pass and fail rows instead of comparing headline scores alone.