[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> I understand that you may have limited resources. Many organizations do.
> What I don't understand is why it's easier or cheaper to do it the wrong
> way than the right way. HTTP authentication is built into web servers.
> It's straight-forward to support out of the box. It takes about five
> minutes to set up securely. It is much, much easier to use than cookies
> are. Why do sites insist on using cookies for user authentication?
I've seen a lot of sites that do silly heavy-Javascript navigation
stuff, the kind that (when you visit their home page) show you a page
saying that they've noticed your browser isn't the most recent version
of IE, so please visit http://www.microsoft.com/ and download the latest
version.
I usually email them a big long rant about how their HTML developers are
ripping them off, investing all that extra effort to make the site
usable by less browsers, all for a few flashy drop down menus. Judging
from responses I receive, the support staff seem to think that adding
support for extra browsers is something they need to pay the Javascript
developers more to do, not as something that would be there if they're
paid the Javascript developers *less* in the first place. I wonder who
could have put THAT idea in their heads, eh? :-)
ABS
|
