[Gllug] Sainsbury's Bank with Linux: online banking followup

[Justin Perreault]

On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 10:11 +0100, Jose Luis Martinez wrote:
> 2008/9/2 Justin Perreault <justinperreault at dl-jp.com>:
> > On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 10:13 +0100, Phil Reynolds wrote:
> >> Quoting "MJ Ray" <mjr at phonecoop.coop>:
> >>
> >> > Many moons ago, Nix <nix at esperi.org.uk> wrote:
> >> > I think the key thing is to use JavaScript to enhance a web interface
> >> > but not to require it.
> >>
> >> Absolutely - I remember one web page that used JavaScript simply to
> >> remind you that the man who ran the server considered it dangerous and
> >> wouldn't let you browse further until you turned it off.
> >
> > This is the best implementation of JavaScript I have ever heard of. If
> > only more sites would do this.
> >
> > Justin
> 
> 
> I hope you jest, the role of a webmaster is not to lecture and
> patronize his website's visitors, if anything a small footer link to a
> page explaining the dangers of JavaScript is the most I would put, if
> anything at all.

Unfortunately, it is not a jest. From my experience the glut of
JavaScript(JS) overuse far out weighs the supposed benefits it should
provide.

Your choice to provide a passive explanation is one route and those
visiting your site then have the option to ignore or adhere to your
suggestion. Regrettably the same does not tend to hold true for the
abusers of JS. They may 'suggest' that enabling JS will improve the
experience of the site when what they really should be stating clearly
is: "Your choice to protect yourself by avoiding the use of JS is of
little concern to us. We do not care one bit for your safety while using
our site. If you hope to gain entrance you should have dropped your
trousers before coming to visit us, but now that you are here we will
kindly wait for you to do so. Have a nice day, please spend money here."

The role of a webmaster may not be to lecture and patronize the visitors
however, it is already the norm. It seems reasonable to me that
'features' of the internet have their good and bad points highlighted
using the same advertising method. At least with pointing out clearly
that the visitors are encouraging unneeded risk the site is saying: "We
want you to be safe. We want those who visit our site to be those who
take care of themselves so we took the responsible step of avoiding the
use of JS where it was not needed. This left us with only one use for
it; to require those visiting us to pay attention to the danger it poses
if they do not already. Have a safe day, please spend money here."

I dislike being lectured to as much as the next person however, when
looking at a website I would rather be told what their version of the
truth is than be subjected to marketing waffle that barely avoids being
a lie.

Justin 

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug