[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).
(Snip)

***   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 
happening.


>> ***   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!"  )-:

  Richard



More information about the nSLUG mailing list