In article <d3sorr$21rv$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>Moe Trin wrote:
>> But it works with every browser we tried!!!
>
>This reminds me of the days when on-line banking worked with virtually
>nothing but IE. The banks were so paranoid (being
>technologically-challenged as one would expect) so they denied access on
>the basis of browser name. It was not even a matter of available/supported
>features.
About two years ago, my primary bank rolled out their new electronic
banking over the web bit, and had a demonstration setup in a shopping mall
trying to attract new users. Techno-clown tries to interest me, spouting
buzzwords like it's going out of style - yup, it's running on IE. I
laughed, and started to move away, when the idiot assures me that it's
safe, and what could go wrong... till I point him back at his computer
where a child (5-8 year-old) is gazing at the beautiful blue screen.
Techno-clown gets flustered, and restarts the computer, saying this is
normal, only to discover that he can't log in, because the remote server
says that he's already connected, and does he want to replace the existing
session with a new one. I complemented him on displaying a meaningful
error message (to the world), but thought that the option would be rather
insecure.
>> Hello, FedEx? (or UPS, or a few others)
>I know, but they won't provide all service types. It's express (and costly)
>delivery.
Costly, you are correct. But here, they'll deliver anything that the official
mail service will, and often in better condition. For a while, a bank was
sending out junk mail (home mortgage refi offers) that way - I guess their
marketing conslutant advised that there was a better chance of having the
offer at least seen by someone other than the guy at the paper recycling
facility, and it only cost ten times the price of regular junk mail.
Old guy
|
|
