[nSLUG] Netscape

Richard Bonner ak621 at chebucto.ns.ca
Sat Jan 17 11:37:57 AST 2009

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, George N. White III wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Richard Bonner <ak621 at chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>> I typically have images, Java, javascript and cookies disabled.
>>> Although I "accept" certs when proffered, I never do anything via a
>>> web connection for which (AFAIK) their validity or correct handling
>>> matters: no banking, shopping, tax forms, gov't forms, securities
>>> trading or the like.
> That reduces your risk, but if you have a credit card and don't check
> for bogus transactions every few days you may have trouble (this
> happened to someone I know) when someone manages to buy
> a dozen Dell systems on your card and you don't report the problem
> until the statment arrives in the mail (e.g. after the sytems were delivered
> to a now vacant apartment).

***   One can access one's bank account though Chebucto's shell 
server. I do that and am completely isolated from the Internet. No 
router, firewall or virus protection is required.

    However, I suppose it might be possible that once that account is 
being accessed, crooks might be able to acquire information if they 
were able to break into Chebucto's server. I would think that they'd 
have to be on line at the same instant as someone accessing his bank 
account and be able to find that person while the transactions were 

>> ***   I have learned that in the past decade more and more workplaces
>> are blocking many of these from their workers anyway - javascript in
>> particular.
> Some workplaces have IT running around blocking javascript, etc. and
> HR requires that everyone enable javascript to process leave requests, etc.
> In IE you can do this by adding the HR site to your "trusted" hosts, but
> very few understand that trusted sites should use https, so force users to
> trun off that option with "trusted sites".

***   It's not that the employees are forced to do anything; it's that 
the features are simply unavailable to them.

>> ***   I can't fathom why businesses don't adhere to
>> accessibility rules. Don't they want to reach the maximum number of
>> potential customers/clients? I guess they think that eye-candy
>> impresses people, but they don't realise how tiring it gets after
>> the umteenth time visitors see it. The better sites have "Bypass"
>> buttons and/or alternate text for those not wanting, or unable to
>> use, those "mare's nests".
> Many managers still don't take web seriously, refuse to pay what a
> capable site designer costs, so give the work to low bid contractor
> or that nephew who can't get a job after being released from prison.

***   I hear that!

> A large fraction of web surfing should work with a text browser
> lynx, links, etc.

***   Making one's site accessible to Lynx almost guarantees 
universal market penetration. I am not a professional html author, 
but do take accessibility to heart and so make all four of my sites 
text & handicapped friendly.

    On a similar note, making one's site Lynx accessible is a bonus for 
search engine placement because they rely on text to "read" a website.
When I started to make my sites text & handicapped friendly in the 
1990s, I noticed a steady climb in hits over the next year.

> I used to complain about sites that were unuseable
> from lynx, but apparently it didn't wortk, as fewer and fewer sites were
> useable.
> -- 
> George N. White

***   I once sent some sitemaster an e-mail regarding text & 
handicapped friendly; his answer: "I don't care!"  )-:


More information about the nSLUG mailing list