Online Banking And Browser Support 602
robbo writes "Earlier this week, The Register ran a piece on major UK banks and E-commerce sites' refusal to support alternative browsers for online banking, and they followed up with a list of saints and sinners. The reasons vary from requiring support for proprietary technology to security. My own bank only recently started supporting Netscape 6 (but they still don't support Mozilla). Clearly, support for Mozilla, Konqueror, or Galeon are absolutely necessary if projects like GNUCash can successfully integrate online banking. How does the Slashdot crowd find their banking support? Is your bank a sinner or a saint?"
for the poll (Score:5, Funny)
Re:for the poll (Score:2)
Re:for the poll (Score:3, Funny)
"I give all my money to CowboyNeil".
Sigh.
Note to Cowboy Neil: Running gags are fine, but only when they are actually funny.
-
Mozilla Credit Union (Score:5, Insightful)
So if a tiny little non-profit credit union can do it, then the larger banks should have no problem.
Re:Mozilla Credit Union (Score:5, Interesting)
What was happening was they where using javascript for the pull down menu's that was only set to recognize MSIE 5/6 and Netscape 4/6. Note - this script would work in about everything I tested it in (opera, moz) but it was just set to only work if it detected those browser's strings. I sent them the fixed
Sigh. Not much I can do about it anymore - besides set opera to identify itself as MSIE 5.0 but that doesn't help with mozilla.
Re:Mozilla Credit Union (Score:5, Insightful)
You could find another bank.. they do exist.
--Sean
Re:Mozilla Credit Union (Score:3, Informative)
I don't have a morgage yet, so the only important non-transfer transaction is the purchase of CD's for me. I generally do this from whoever has the best interest rate at the time of purchase, and don't worry about them till it's time to cash.
When I get a morgage I imagine I will set up an automatic bill pay in order to pay it off inside of 10 years or so, which would require no interaction from me after I set it up.
In short, being able to pay my credit card every few days from either banking account while rebalancing my checkbook does simplify the finances quite a bit, in fact I can't imagine doing them any other way again.
First Citizens supports alternatives.... (Score:2, Informative)
I hesitate to call any bank a Saint, but in at least this one regard, First Citizens are more Saint than Sinner.
Wells Fargo (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wells Fargo (Score:3, Interesting)
I know it's just one guy rather than some all reaching Linux education program there, but it was still very refreshing to not have someone in that position telling me that I should upgrade to Internet Explorer.
Re:Wells Fargo (Score:3, Informative)
The only problem I've ever had with it involved an old version of Opera. I can't well describe what I saw, but it apparently was just a bug in Opera that was later fixed.
Re:Wells Fargo (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wells Fargo (Score:3, Informative)
I think their browser check only goes so far as to look at the user-agent string instead of anything potentially more sophisticated. For sh*ts and grins, I tried logging in with Lynx (an SSL-enabled build, of course) one time. As I expected, they rejected it.
I tried this next:
That got around the browser check just fine...and the site was surprisingly navigable with Lynx, too. If you're using something other than IE/NS/Moz and you can set the user-agent string, try it out with your bank and see how it works.
Nationwide (Score:4, Informative)
I love netbank (Score:3, Interesting)
Works fine for me in Mozilla, and has ever since I switched to moz last year.
I used to be with SFNB, the first totally "online" bank, but when they were bought out a few years ago, they started charging fees like a regular bank, which kind of defeated the whole point of reducing transaction costs by being online.
Re:I love netbank (Score:3, Informative)
When I repatriated last year, retail banks didn't want my account due to a lack of banking history. NetBank was fast, efficient, and gives great rates.
My only complaint is that you cannot see deposit advices ahead of time, which is something my company does. Must be a batch system in the back for transaction history.
Amen! (Score:3, Informative)
Chase and USBank are okay (Score:2)
To make banks listen you have to speak in the only language they know: money. If their site doesn't support your preferred browser, close your account and make sure you let them know it's because they don't support you. Then just find another bank that does, it doesn't sound like it would be all that difficult.
Attribution of blame. (Score:5, Informative)
I've been guilty of it in the past - having to rush out a project, and not taking the time to test on every browser across every platform. The "IE only" disclaimer is an excuse for the most part.
It's worth complaining to the company though, especially if you mention they're being ridiculed on a number of extremely popular tech news sites
Not always the developers (Score:3, Insightful)
Then we have to go back to them with our site stats and say "are you willing to piss off X percent of users?" Luckily they wake up then. Lately, we've reversed the position - we tell them what browsers we're supporting, and why we cut off specific support for some browser versions where we do.
There are a lot of "Internet users" who don't have any concept of the Internet beyond IE, and even scarier, they're now the ones deciding how sites should be built.
Re:Attribution of blame. (Score:5, Insightful)
As I see it, there are two possibilities when a bank site doesn't work with non-IE browsers:
1. The bank wanted a solution that would work with all browsers, but the developer cut corners and didn't provide it.
2. The bank didn't care.
For #2, I think it's safe to say the blame lies solely with the bank.
For #1, it seems the blame is largely with the developers. After all, the site's ability to work with all browsers was either explicitly stated, or it was implied. There's no reason an ordinary person would think "I want you to build my website" would be interpreted as "I want you to build a website that only some of my customers can use". Unless the developer explicitly states that their proposal is limited to IE, the expectation is (rightfully) that there is no such limitation.
At the same time, though, any organization contracting out such a significant job has a responsibility to exercise some due diligence. Especially a financial organization, due to the need for security. They ought to do enough research (either themselves, or hire a consultant) to know how to discriminate between competing bids. And they ought to ensure before accepting a bid that the developer truly understands their requirements, and that all requirements are in the contract. If they do all that, and the developer doesn't provide everything they said they would, that's breach of contract. If the bank doesn't do its due diligence, then it has to accept a share of the blame for having a half-assed website.
FWIW, Bank of America's site seems to work fine with Mozilla.
Sinner: TD Waterhouse (Score:2)
It's the protocols and standards that matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Then there would be less problems. Web designers and browser developers can then both spend more time on adding functionality, because they only have to support 1 peer instead of n.
My bank, the Dutch ABNAMRO, states somewhere that they only support IE. But Mozilla works, although a tad ugly.
Man, switch banks (Score:2)
Things will only change if... (Score:5, Informative)
So get off your ass, knock up a form letter, keep it handy, and complain!
The future is partly in your hands.
Re:Things will only change if... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Things will only change if... (Score:5, Funny)
You must be fun at a parties.
The world needs more people like you :-)
Seriously, though, one thing I wished more people did, was at least do the converse as well, and write a letter letting a company know when you think they've done something *right*. It's almost unheard of; people often intend to, but never get around to it, unlike letters of complaint.
Re:Things will only change if... (Score:4, Interesting)
I did. It looks something like this.
Dear Sir / Madam,
An article published on The Register a few days ago (and available at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/23/27756.html ) prompted me to write to you regarding the browser support on your Online Banking service. A long-time Linux user browsing with Mozilla and a customer of your bank for a couple of years now, I am very frustrated by your lack of consideration in supporting alternative operating systems and web browsers. Supporting only one or two platforms for such an essential service as online banking shows short-sightedness and disregard for your customers.
There are various reasons why it is a bad idea to limit your support to certain web browsers or operating systems and instead use proprietory solutions. These include:
- Some people are unable to use certain technologies. The visually impaired, for example, may need special hardware and/or software to access the Web. Phone banking is not an acceptable alternative; everyone should have access to the World Wide Web. The World Wide Web Consortium (www.w3.org) is working hard to achieve this goal by setting standards, so breaking them is inherently the wrong thing to do.
- The actual standards in place today are very secure and well designed, something which cannot be said about the proprietory extensions in most Microsoft products. Limiting your support to certain 'tested' browsers is by no means going to improve the security of your system; in fact, trying to improve security through using Microsoft products is an oxymoron and laughable at best.
- The method by which you are trying to limit access is useless but annoying. Most 'alternative' browsers allow the user to set their browser identification to anything they like, that is, the browser will present itself as, say, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0. Therefore, most knowledgeable users who are unable to access your site because of this limitation will change their browser identification and be permitted. However, this is a bad idea because (a) it will produce misleading browser statistics for you, (b) it lets anyone access your site tailored for a certain, non-standard-compliant browser, and (c) it may lead to situations where the user is allowed access but, because of the non-standard nature of your site, will not be able to navigate as intended.
I realise that Microsoft Internet Explorer is by far the most popular browser but there are many alternatives available. Ignoring these alternatives is utterly irresponsible of you, as well as bad business practice. Even if just ten per cent of people use the alternative browsers, that's ten per cent of potential customers to lose to your more considerate competitors.
The Register published a hall-of-fame as well as a hall-of-shame (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/27777.html ). Of your competitors, Barclays, Lloyds TSB and Nationwide are among the considerate. I am sure I can find a bank which values its customers by providing the means to actually use their money. Unless I can see a considerable improvement in your support in this matter, I will be forced to change banks.
Sincerely,
Chase Manhattan (Score:3, Informative)
Having used it, I can vouch that this is true. The GUI is exclusively ActiveX, which works only on some versions of IE. I have to assume there is some windows web/db system driving the backend, at least in front of the mainframe (or whatever is holding the real bank records).
And it seems this is rather common among bank clients, even among smaller banks and credit unions. On three bank sites I looked at recently, two explicitly stated that IE was necessary, and on the third it was implied.
CapitalOne, MBNA and others (Score:2)
I only care because I've been following the capitalone.com bug [mozilla.org] for months with no help whatsoever from them.. Oh well. The MBNA [mbna.com] site for my Linux Fund card [linuxfund.org] works fine. I'll be cancelling my capitalone card soon.
Who cares what they say they support? (Score:3, Insightful)
How many banks really *block* a given browser? And if they do, how many really wouldn't work if you masqueraded your user agent?
It sucks that these places don't officially support other browsers, but if anyone here has ever worked on an externally-facing web-based software package, you know that there is just so many combinations of things your QA department can test, and a good company will only say they support those, even if they know others would work. Its not responsible to say you support Mozilla if you've only ever tested Netscape 6, officially.
Re:Who cares what they say they support? (Score:5, Informative)
Can't support everything (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't support everything (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't write web pages for browsers, you write web pages to standards [w3c.org].
It's not too hard, for inspiration, Wired News [wirednews.com] recently switched to full xhtml compliance with css. Their stuff works fine in any compliant browser.
People who complain about "I try to write to standards but all the browsers are broken", or "you can only do $feature on a certain browser" are lazy. That was a valid excuse 5 years ago, but not today. It is easier to write the stuff compliant to begin with than play around with stupid browser detection and NS4.x workarounds.
Re:Can't support everything (Score:5, Interesting)
I currently use Barclays (UK), and their site demonstrate my point well. It works. It's reasonably fast (and when it isn't, it's because their system is overloaded, not because they're trying to push hundreds of kb's of crap to my browser), and it works flawlessly even with Lynx (thought their pages look like crap, since they don't use empty alt tags to hide all their pixel gifs...
Can you explain to me exactly which advanced functionality your bank need to use to make their site work that hasn't been there since HTML 1.0?
Re:Can't support everything (Score:2)
Quite honestly, I'm surprised banks don't release a custom version of Mozilla, or a proprietary non-web app to customers, and restrict interaction to only that application.
The number of potential web customers a bank loses due to not supporting GNUMyFavoriteBrowser 5.123r43b5, regardless of how good it is, is irrelevant compared to what they could lose if they do.
HTML 1.0 didn't support tables, forms, etc. (Score:3, Informative)
Have you not read the HTML standards? HTML 1.0 didn't support anything but basic hyperlinking and the <PRE> tag. See here [ariadne.ac.uk] for more details. HTML 1.0 didn't support tables, forms, frames, etc. (Warning: Link is extremely dated.)
As I said earlier [slashdot.org], I code my pages to the XHTML 1.0 standard. That means that Netscape 4.x won't render them properly, as Netscape 4 relies on a number of non-standard HTML tags and attributes (marginwidth, marginheight, height, etc.) In fact, Netscape 4 is so buggy when it comes to CSS that there are whole pages [oc3.no] dedicated to its bugginess. (Search Google [google.com] for more.)
Moral of the story: Code your pages to standards, and make sure they work in IE 5.0, 5.5, and 6.0. Beyond that, it's up to each individual web developer.
Re:Can't support everything (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me expand on that: in my experience with sites of all descriptions, the ones that are most usable also work flawlessly across browsers.
And this is exactly for the reasons you state: they keep it as simple as it CAN be for everything to still work.
What's more, these sites are often the most legible as well as the most visually-attractive, even with js and image loading off!!
Re:Can't support everything (Score:5, Insightful)
And if they do care about the browser, all logic would dictate that they shouldn't support IE, given the security track record IE has.
Fact is, this is entirely laziness and incompetence from the banks technical departments.
In the end though, the incompetent banks will lose out - I've already cancelled one bank account due to a ridiculously bad online bank (a 1.5MB java applet that required write access to your hard disk to write an encrypted profile that you needed to move around to any machine you wanted to access their bank from, which in itself made it useless to me, as the reason I use online banking is to be able to do my banking from anywhere I please - add to that that the applet had severe problems on anything but Windows...). While my account on it's own only accounted for a few hundred dollars a year in lost revenue for them, I'm sure I'm not the first and won't be the last they lose.
Why the heck /should/ banks support "alt" browsers (Score:2, Flamebait)
[/rant]
Re:Why the heck /should/ banks support "alt" brows (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should a bank have anything on their site that requires a specific browser? Its not a game site, its a bank. As long as they stick to some very simple rules, any browswer will work.
Re:Why the heck /should/ banks support "alt" brows (Score:2, Insightful)
I completely agree. Only last week I had to listen to the cheek of some idiot saying how I should have put a wheelchair ramp in so he could access my store! The week before that some black guy complained because I wouldnt serve him - it's my right isnt it?
Re:Why the heck /should/ banks support "alt" brows (Score:2)
Apples/Oranges. You can install another browser or operating system or use a friend's computer to access your bank website if you need to. It's a feature, not a necessity.
However, the guy in the wheel chair can't borrow someone's legs to access your facility, which could be a necessity (depending on what your facility is).
That argument is total bull. (Score:2, Insightful)
I knew someone would bring that up. The difference between this and what browser you use is that your skin color or physical ability usually isn't your choice. Most people don't wake up one day and say "I think I will be disabled today" or "I think I will be a minority race today". You pretty much are or you aren't, and you can't usually change it easily.
The browser you use, on the other hand, is entirely your choice. You do have the ability to use Internet Explorer. (And none of this "I use Linux so I can't use IE" stuff... you chose to use Linux as well.) For the most part, when you switch to a different browser, you are aware that some sites will not work well with that browser.
I code my pages to the XHTML standard. I refuse to support Netscape 4.x because it does not support standards. My pages don't work on Mozilla 1.0 because of a bug in Mozilla 1.0's XHTML rendering. Does that mean I should break my layout because Mozilla 1.0 has a bug, considering Mozilla 1.0 is less than one percent of my readership?
The latest browser stats [onestat.com] show that Netscape 4 has 1.2% of the market and that Mozilla 1.x has 0.8% of the market. This means that web developers need to spend more time working with the 94.9% of the population that uses Internet Explorer than the decided minority that uses another browser.
Let's face it -- all browsers have quirks. "Coding to standards" will not always solve the problem (as I mentioned above.) Thus, most web developers code for the 95% of their audience that is on IE first, and then choose to make sites compatible with minority browsers at their discretion. If you spend 50% of your development time working around bugs in Netscape 4.x (which has more market share than either Mozilla 1.x or Opera), is that an effective use of your time? If you "code to standards" and your site still doesn't work in Mozilla or Opera, is troubleshooting the problem an effective use of your time considering that those two browsers count for less than 2% of your audience? Like it or not, the answer is most often "No."
Re:Why the heck /should/ banks support "alt" brows (Score:2)
The truth is that when a bank builds an online banking application and they start UAT testing, there will be no mention of Mozillas, Operas and Konquerors. You'll be lucky if it works in NS 4.72+ and IE 5.0.
You honestly think anyone is screaming in board meetings "Good heavens, our application doesn't work in Opera!"
The only reason why some of these applications work in Opera/Mozilla is just by chance that they emulate the popular web browsers.
Re:Why the heck /should/ banks support "alt" brows (Score:2)
Re:Why the heck /should/ banks support "alt" brows (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that there is an open set of standards out there that banks should be developing to- not specific browsers. Otherwise, there isn't any point in having standards, is there?
And yes, you can code to standards without killing cross-browser compatibility. I think the idea that you can't is one of the biggest myths of web development. It takes work, but then if you are a professional that should be your job.
Generally speaking, I think these sites come around through lazy or inexperienced developers who only know or are required to use a specific set of tools because it's 'cost-effective' and/or 'faster' instead of actually doing their job.
Whether it's the developers fault or management is up in the air- probably a little bit of both.
Re:Why the heck /should/ banks support "alt" brows (Score:2, Insightful)
HSBC (Score:2)
BofA/NationsBank (Score:2)
I wonder how many of the "sinner" banks use IIS? NationsBank uses Netcape/iPlanet so in that regard they haven't sold out to the dark side, yet. Does the server platform somehow reflect on their browser support??
These articles proliferate the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahhh! This is the very cause of the problem! Why are they acting like IE is the "standard" and everything else is "alternative!" Is Ford standard, but Chevrolet alternative?
Another scary point is that these articles indicate that browser spoofing often works. This means that the only reason some of these sites don't work, is because they refuse to! There are no real incompatibilities
Re:These articles proliferate the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm so tired of the same old "W3C is the standard" horseshit. Get over it. The W3C is irrelevant. It has been for years. Scream until you're blue in the face, but until you can convince billions of people to follow that arbitrary "standard", you're just wasting oxygen. IE is the standard. Deal with it. Move on with life. It isn't that important.
Re:These articles proliferate the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, you'd be surprised to know that most banks see colleged kids as some of their most valuable customers, as hooking a colleged kid now means they are likely to get a customer that will stay with the bank for years, will get a high paid job, will get a mortgage, credit cards, personal loans and more.
Banks have been known to go to quite some excesses to get college kids to move to their bank, including special graduate loans, high credit limits, preferable interest rates and more.
And you're right, business is about profit, not market share, which is exactly why it's important for a business such as a bank to deal with non-IE browsers:
Their cost is essentially the same - they merely need to give their tech team the right guidelines, unless their tech team consists of people who should never have done software development in the first place. The development time should be the same or LESS. The maintenance costs will DROP, as they don't have to change their site every time there's a new version of IE with different quirks.
And their potential market is then 5% larger.
All their other fixed costs stays the same, and for a bank the fixed costs are incredibly high. Adding 5% to their potential market share could easily add 10-15% to their bottom line.
Re:These articles proliferate the problem (Score:3, Redundant)
Does IE actually use "standards" though? Well, that's another argument. Unfortunately, the most popular browser becomes the browser that sites get coded against. Consequently, it becomes the standard.
I would say that Opera is an alternative browser too. The average web user has no idea what Opera is. Even if they did know what it is, why would they even want another web browser when IE is conviently located on their desktop? Man, if the IE icon isn't right on the start menu, quick launch toolbar and on the desktop, my family has no idea where the icon is.
And it's a good thing Ford isn't the standard otherwise we would have to deal with more of this [crownvicto...yalert.com] and that [dot.gov] but I digress
Re:These articles proliferate the problem (Score:4, Funny)
In a related story, all branches of various major banks have concluded analysis of their customers' outfits when entering the bank. One of the key statistics revealed by this analysis was that over 90% of customers entering a bank wore long pants or dresses (mainly female). Customers wearing shorts were at about 7% of the total, and the rest was undistinguishable clothing.
Following this key statistic, all of the major banks have decided to deny entry and service to anyone wearing shorts by having one security guard outside of every branch. "Most our customers don't wear shorts anyway" - pointed out one of the senior VPs, who asked to remain anonymous. Wearing shorts was also attributed to having "less secure pocketing architecture" with more likelihood of tears, "losing stuff", and largely insecure banking atmosphere. Other reports have stated that shorts are not really appropriate when entering a financial institution to conduct a professional transaction.
Everyone at the end agrees that standard (long) pants and dresses (mostly for women) are a standard outfit, and barring customers wearing shorts from these bank branches would not eventually have a significant impact. Yet some of these people passionately standing by these alternative outfits have found other ways to "fool" banks. Some have reported that the latest in loose and somewhat longer shorts fashion allowed them to deceive the bank guards and pass by them undetected. Some of these "hackers" pointed out that "pushing your shorts down your waist" can help one a lot. It is also worth pointing out that this strategy will not work in all banks and all branches. Unofficial reports state that some bank guards are instructed to check every questionable clothing item thoroughly before allowing anyone inside.
Meanwhile, various cunsumer protection and civil liberties groups have cried foul, arguing that everyone wearing a decent outfit, including shorts, should be allowed inside the branches. Banks, however, remain firm in their approach to only allow standard outfits for now, but did not exclude the possibility of revisiting the issue 2 to 3 years down the road.
I'm Canadian (Score:3, Informative)
CIBC supports Mozilla, but... (Score:2)
Editors: Next time check that your shining examples aren't just fool's gold.
I'm getting more and more annoyed hearing about little tiny credit unions that work happily with Opera, Moz, and Phoenix while my monolithic, monopolistic (actually, in Canada it's more properly described as an oligopoly) behemoth of a bank won't recognize my browser.
On the plus side, kudos to ING Direct (the Canadian subsidiary of the European ING Group) for supporting Opera.
Still accessible though (Score:2)
Of course, this shows how stupid they are at blocking non-IE browsers, since it works well without it, but I think it's mostly a question of caring for the minority, because more than 90% of web users use IE.
What about geeks switching banks for one who do care for them ?
Mozilla/Galeon Works Great for Me (Score:2)
TD Canada Trust (Score:2, Informative)
Just call the bank (Score:2, Interesting)
Well here in Austria the Raiffeisen Bank had a few incompatibilities with Netscape 6 (when it came out) and Opera 5. I just called them, told them what it was and how to fix it and a week later the online banking thingy worked with all last generation browsers.
On the other side there are banks here that still use custom windows software with dial-in (cool for all Linux, Apple, DSL and Cable users/owners isn't it) or bet on Java Applets which of course only work in one browser be it Netscape or MSIE. Don't ask me how they manage to get applets working only on one platform and browser. Well i would switch bank if my online banking solution does not work for me - so switch and tell your bank why you switched, then things might change.
LloydsTSB works (Score:2)
TD bank (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.tdcanadatrust.com/
I've had no trouble with Mozilla and TD's Easyweb service. Pay bills, transfer money, etc. Nice clean layout too.
Bank & Credit Card websites. (Score:2)
Fleet Bank/Credit Services: refused to let me log in using a non-Windows browser. I closed my accounts w/ them specifically because they wouldn't even respond to queries regarding compatiblity issues w/ their website.
MBNA: No problems using either Netscape 4.x or Mozilla for Linux. Didn't like the way they have bill payment setup on their website, but no problems accessing.
Citibank/AT&T Universal: They both use the same website (although you have to have separate login names). No problems using either Netscape 4.x or Mozilla for Linux.
Discover: No problems using either Netscape 4.x or Mozilla for Linux. They were the first credit card company that I ever came across to allow online account access & bill payment (Citibank wasn't far behind them).
redit Union (local, one branch college credit union that I still use): No problems using either Netscape 4.x or Mozilla for Linux. Mozilla occasionally has difficulties displaying the account history table (the first column will take up the entire width of the window, and the rest get crammed into tiny columns), reloading the page a few times will usually fix it.
In case you hadn't figured it out, these are all US based institutions.
agree on citibank (Score:2)
Allfirst works fine (Score:2)
Since about Mozilla 9.9, online banking at allfirst.com has worked quite well. All I do with it is to check my account balances and histories, and transfer money between checking and savings, so maybe there are some other features that don't work, but it's fine for me. You can download stuff in MS Excel format, CSV, PDF, etc.; it's pretty good.
Now, as far as banks go, Allfirst isn't the best in the world, but since I don't exactly have piles of money from my lowly freshmeat contractor and college newspaper jobs, it'll do for the present
First Internet Bank (Score:2)
The fact that they can get changes made to their software fairly easily in response to customer complaints / suggestions is not terribly surprising considering that their software vendor [vifi.com], until recently, was run by their CEO and Chairman of the Board.
Banco do Brasil (Score:2, Informative)
They have implemented a java based 'virtual keyboard' a while ago and this broke mozilla support. Then, when java 1.4 was out, every thing was back to normal. I could use on-line banking from anywhere again.
Things will only change if... (Score:2)
- If the group of linux geeks grows to more than just a miniscule, fringe group
- Open source coders develop developer & platform tools as robust as those offered by the likes of Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, etc. Right now, nothing approaches these folks, and only a fool IT manager would literally "Bet the bank" on unaccountable, open source technologies.
Don't get me wrong, noncommercial open source is great, but it just doesn't make sense in some areas. There's no aggressive development cycle, and no real accountability.
I wish people would stop bitching about their obscure browsers not working with this or that...
Re:Things will only change if... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Things will only change if... (Score:2)
Re:Things will only change if... (Score:2)
What is one good reason that banks should spend an extra manhour of time developing for multiple browsers? Is there a single financial reason to do it? Are they mising a large customer base?
No. Anybody who knows the first thing about business would look at this scenario and say, "don't bother". The risk (support and development time & money) isn't worth the reward (getting a few open source zealots' $100 checking accounts, which, incidentally, cost them more money than they make).
It's a fucking stupid business decision to buck the trend. It's especially fucking stupid for a bank to do anything that's remotely not mainstream.
banking.wellsfargo.com (Score:2)
But wouldn't it be better if instead of determining specific browsers if they had a list of supported technologies?
Wells Fargo = Saint; Bank One = Sinner (Score:3, Interesting)
harrisdirect.com (Score:2, Informative)
If you can keep up with thier constant buyouts and name changing, they were always really responsive. I complained that their navbar had flaky javascript on it that was totally unnecessary, and in a week it was gone. Other than that, they always were very compatible with any browser I wanted to use, which is pretty nice considering it's a pretty complex online trading platform.
firstunion.com....
Sometimes good, sometimes bad... They change their code so often, it's a tossup as to whether your browser will make it past the signin screen. I've mostly had problems logging in, if I can get logged in, things usually work fine. One thing that is bad is if you don't set your browser to auto-accept all cookies, the site will constantly screw your session up, even if you manually accept the cookies. At least it used to. As I said, they change their code a lot.
Give KUDO's to the good ones! (Score:2)
I _don't_ want them to support Moz, Opera, Konq... (Score:5, Insightful)
I want them to support standards like HTML, XHTML, CSS and so on.
Then the sites will work with any current or future client technology that also supports those standards.
Nowadays, there is no reason why your site should not be valid [w3c.org]
Amazing Linux Browser Banking Resource (Score:2, Informative)
Someone has already made a much better chart of how various Linux browsers do at various banks around the world. Check out the site [starnix.com].
The chart lists 302 banks in 32 countries and indicates whether someone has reported success with Netscape 4, Netscape 6/7, Mozilla, Galeon, Konquerer 2, Konqueror 3, Opera, and Elinks.
Help him fill in the chart if you have info on an unlisted bank or on a browser for a listed bank by e-mailing Evan [mailto]
RoyalBank (Score:2, Informative)
And really, there I can't see any reason why some browsers would not be allowed to use the online system. I mean I understand that they might design the site with IE in mind, but why not just say something like "Use whatever you like, that has ssl, but we won't offer technical support to anything but IE" and put one of those ugly "best viewed with Internet Explorer" banners?
My experiences (Score:2)
Bank of America (Score:3, Interesting)
Bank of America hasn't given me any problems, from Netscape 4 to Mozilla 1.1. I wouldn't necessarily say they are some wonderful bank -- they are a huge corporation and have all the associated pains, but at least they're not making me use Internet Exploder.
I refuse to use IE. If someone requires IE, they typically don't get my business and they usually get a nasty note as well. Same goes for sites that *require* flash, BTW. I only installed flash because of the games [slashdot.org] it lets me play.
Navy Federal with Lynx? (Score:2)
Multiple browser support CAN be done...
LloydsTSB (Score:2, Informative)
6/10 to LloydsTSB.
CitiCards.com (Score:2)
By the way, DiscoverCard.com [discovercard.com] worked the whole time.
Oh, and my bank ehbt.com [ehbt.com] works fine. It's a third-party thing from fundsexpress.com [fundsexpress.com] FYI.
USAA (Score:2)
Unfortunately, not everyone can become a member; see the URL for more information.
E*Trade (Score:2, Informative)
suntrust is somewhere in the middle toward saint.. (Score:2, Informative)
it seems to me that it would be easier to make the company's website compatible across the board than it would to do the same for the complex system for managing accounts. oh well. i'm a satisfied with it anyway.
My bank works fine... now (Score:3, Interesting)
And for everyone who is complaining that Mozilla can't change the useragent... Yes it can. You can either set the following pref in your prefs.js:
user_pref("general.useragent.override", "fake agent string");
Or install the following toolbar widget thing to change it on the fly (very handy!):
UABar [mozdev.org]
Re:Opera? (Score:2)
I don't have any problems with any of my 4 online bank sites.
Re:Opera? (Score:4, Informative)
Capital One determines the browser using JavaScript, not the UA header. Unfortunately overriding the UA string does not override what JavaScript returns. And the site of course doesn't work at all w/o JS...
It was enough to cancel my card...
Re:Opera? (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't really work. US Bank pulled a similar stunt with regard to their browsers. I had to use IE to get into my account, and that bothered me.
Here is what I did: I sent them a polite e-mail explaining that I work between Linux and Windows and the common browser (I use) between them is Opera. It is a well respected browser and I find it a bit painful to move to another browser just to use their site. They sent me an e-mail back saying they were getting a lot of requests like that and that they were looking into fixing it.
And they did. I can now use Opera at US Bank and all I get is a warning saying "this isn't a recommended browser, so it's yo fault." Heh.
So my advice to anybody who wants to contact their bank about this: Be polite. Don't make it sound like it's the end of the world. Don't make it sound like they're evil or stupid. Just politely explain your situation. You may or may not change any minds anywhere, but I guarantee you that if you get shitty with them you won't be heard.
Re:Opera? (Score:2)
function isBrowserOK() { return true ; }
The problem with this is having the proxy make the SSL connection. Proxomitron cn do this, but so far I've preferred to have SSL simply pass through the proxy unaltered.
Re:wamu (Score:5, Informative)
1) They block ICMP requests. Before I fixed my firewall (forcing the MTU), I couldn't get to the site.
2) Javascript that sets focus to the Username field *after* the page finishes loading (onLoad()). If you're already typing the password at this point, you look up, and just typed it (viewable) in the Username box.
Oh, make that 3 complaints:
3) It's far from realtime...
Other than these minor issues, I have never had a problem with any SSL-capable browser on any platform (even the HTML/CSS/tables all line up correctly).
---
I cancelled my Capital One card over their refusal to allow Mozilla. Spoofing the UA header doesn't work, as they obtain this via Javascript (which must be enabled). Moz doesn't (yet?) let you override the UA that javascript returns...
I've emailed Cap One many times, and even tried to explain to the Phone Monkey when I cancelled the card why I was cancelling. Unfortunately, this person understood none of what I was saying...
Of course I've also emailed Flipdog.com, VistaPrint.com, and other sites over issues like this. Pisses me off, and I do hope AOL one day ships a Gecko/Mozilla-based browser for this reason...
Re:wamu (Score:2)
Re:Online banking is a stupid idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Banks have limits on how many teller assisted transactions one can do (usually per quarter or statement). Also, some people work during all bank hours (usually 9 to 5).
The internet may not be as secure as anyone would wish it to be, but it's still more secure than handling things in the branches. As a former teller, I can tell you that there are massive amounts of fraud that bank branches have to watch out for. With a good password your information should be safe.
Re:Online banking is a stupid idea (Score:2)
I never tell anyone my secret password - and its so obvious no one would think of it!
pASSword
hehe.
Re:Online banking is a stupid idea (Score:2)
When I used to have a "brick and mortar" bank, I'd go for years without interacting with a live person because I used the ATM for most of my transactions and I've had autodeposit of pay checks since the early 80s. In addition to being convenient, my on-line bank's (www.everbank.com) interest pays in the top 5% of banks since they don't have to pay a bunch of tellers and suits to stand around nor pay for physical security since they have no cash.
Re:Saints (Score:2)
Note that some sites don't check the brower string at all. Instead, they do the proper thing, and simply force a specific (or minimum) encryption level (say, 128 bit).
The ones that check the UA string for a specific browser or set of browsers, are denying potential customers access. I can't stand when they do that.
Simply forcing a minimum encryption level is all that is needed IMO. It should not matter what browser you are using, if it's SSL-, forms-, and tables-capable, and perhaps JavaScript-capable, then it should be just fine.
Hell, I'd love to see an online banking site with a "lite" or "text" version, for smaller (but SSL-capable) devices...
Re:Saints (Score:2)
Re:Wells Fargo (Score:2, Interesting)
offtopic rant...
But I've had the same problems with college sites in general. For example, my college employment board requires all resumes to be submitted in MS *.doc or *.rtf format (for that stupid fscking buzzword parser).
Interestingly, if I create my report in staroffice 6.0 and save it as either a *.doc or *.rtf file, it STILL doesn't work. If I load the file into MS Office and then resave it it works fine. It's annoying to say the least; and I'm really curious as to why it doesnt work- especially the rtf version.