Skip to page content or skip to Accesskey List.
Search evolt.org
evolt.org login: or register

Work

Main Page Content

They Just Don't Get It

Rated 4.16 (Ratings: 4) (Add your rating)

Log in to add a comment
(6 comments so far)

Want more?

 
Picture of r937

rudy limeback

Member info | Full bio

User since: December 13, 1998

Last login: March 08, 2011

Articles written: 12

Someone in my company recently asked me for help with a Javascript error she was getting. "Sure," I said, being an old programmer who loves a challenge. The problem was on a very well-known Canadian corporation's Web site, which several people inside our company use on a regular basis, and who knows how many thousands in the real world. It was happening in Netscape but not Internet Explorer.

Here's the code that was generating the error --

  <input type="text" name="origin" size="10" value="">
  <img src="/images/nav/home/down_arrow.gif"
    width="16" height="22" align="absmiddle"
    alt="Choose a City" border="0"
    onMouseDown="setMouseDown(event, self);"
    onMouseUp="openWindow(event, self,
     'schedules/scheduling/cityOptions.html',
     'newWindow__schedule_origin__schedule_org',
     390, 140);">

"Wow," I opined. "That is so cool!"   "Shaddap, Rudy. You're talking out loud again," came a voice from over the cubicle partition.

This was the first time I had ever seen anything like this. It's a combination INPUT TEXT field and a special "down arrow" gif, and together they look just like a dropdown select list. When you click on the image that looks like the down arrow of a dropdown list, a small window pops up which contains -- are you ready for this? -- a dropdown list! You pick an entry from the list, and it gets populated back into the text box. (How do I know this? Because it works fine in Internet Explorer. However, Netscape is our company standard.) You have to close the popup window using the Close button, but that's a minor quibble. Alternatively, if you know what you want, you can type it right into the text box. Not a bad idea, a combination input/dropdown control. Too bad it throws an error in Netscape, eh?

"Okay, I'll get to the bottom of this," I said -- to myself, this time. There's a Contact page, I'll write to the webmaster.

Here's what transpired. Note that I've changed the domain to foobar.ca because they did not give me permission to post their emails and make fun of them on a public site, although I daresay they probably would never know it.

.rudy { font-family:monospace; color:#000066; font-size:12px }

2000-10-03 15:47
  hi webmaster
  several people in our company are reporting javascript errors using your home page
  "JavaScript Error: http://www.foobar.ca/home.html, line 705: init is not defined."
  plus a couple others (possibly related)
  seems to be only certain versions of netscape (not sure)
  internet explorer 4.01 works okay
  rudy limeback

It was ten (10) days before the answer came back:

2000-10-13 10:13
 Hello,
  that will occur with older browsers.
  Our website is compatible with versions of 4 +
  regards,
  webmaster@foobar.ca

Duh. No it's not.

2000-10-13 11:25
  thanks for the reply
  the javascript errors are occuring on netscape 4.04 specifically (our company desktop standard) and other 4+ versions of netscape
  there must be something wrong with your netscape 4+ version detection script, because i'm still getting these errors --
  JavaScript Error: http://foobar.ca/home.html, line 913: IsBrowser is not defined.
  JavaScript Error: http://foobar.ca/home.html, line 713: init is not defined.
  JavaScript Error: http://foobar.ca/home.html, line 625: function does not always return a value.
    }
  ..^
  just thought you should know
  rudy

Only four days to get an answer this time (two if you don't count the weekend):

2000-10-17 11:04
 Hello,
  You will need the latest version, Netscape 4.75. 4.04 is an older version. You need only upgrade the browser version.
  regards,
  webmaster@foobar.ca

I don't believe it. Let's see if I can get this person on the phone. Notice that he or she has still not identified himself/herself.

2000-10-17 11:19
  hi
  thanks for the reply
  could you please give me a quick call? please?
  rudy
  416 864 8268

This time a fairly quick response:

2000-10-17 12:05
  Hello,
  Please call 1-800-xxx-xxxx for assistance.
  thank you
  webmaster@foobar.ca

Getting warm, eh? I thought so too.

2000-10-17 13:43
  hi
  i tried that number but all i got was a generic recording
  there was no option like "press 4 to speak to the webmaster"
  i want to actually discuss the javascript with you
  do you have a problem with discussing the javascript with me?
  i won't bite, honest
  i would like to help you fix it
  i think telling a client to upgrade their browser version is, um, very lame to say the least, but i also understand that perhaps you do not have the authority or autonomy to discuss this with me
  if you do not wish to discuss it, could you please pass me to one of your superiors?
  thanks
  rudy

Now the kicker --

2000-10-17 14:33
  Hello,
  I've forwarded this to our technical experts. I am not authorized to call customers.
  regards,
  webmaster@foobar.ca

Is that a riot, or what?! The person who responds to the emails from the Web site is not authorized to actually speak to the customers? Time to send them over to cluetrain.com. They just don't get it.

I have still not heard back from them, but it's only been a week.

My involvement with evolt.org goes back to 1998, as one of the original founders. I'm an SQL consultant who dabbled in web development for several years, in the "golden age" between HTML 2 and XHTML 1.1. My web sites are r937.com and rudy.ca. I live in Toronto, Canada, and you are all cordially invited to come and visit and play a round of frisbee golf with me.

Submitted by aericks on October 26, 2000 - 10:46.

Rudy, you are a webmaster's worst nightmare. :-)

login or register to post comments

Submitted by roland on October 30, 2000 - 05:00.

I agree (the part about a webmaster's worst nightmare) but at least he's got a good sense of humour!

login or register to post comments

Submitted by erika on October 30, 2000 - 11:58.

Businesses should just hire good people, & let them work. What's the point of hiring a non-technical person to answer webmaster email? I suppose the tech staff was feeding the answers to the guy responding to email. Probably the concern was that the tech staff wasn't capable of answering email cordially and with the required degree of restraint... I'm just guessing. I agree that these folks need to get a clue.

login or register to post comments

Submitted by themadman on October 31, 2000 - 08:39.

I agree with Erika. I may be a bit extremist in my views, but I strongly feel that only the person directly responsible for managing the web site should monitor webmaster mail. I can think of a couple of advantages: 1) The webmaster can get the problem fixed as soon as possible. No delays in forwarding mail to a "tech support" department that then forwards it to the "development" department, that then... 2) The person managing a site should always be aware of all problems that crop up with a site. It helps to evaluate the kind of job the designers and developers have done. Did you say that it took TEN days to get an initial reply, Rudy? That is totally unpardonable in my book. I've managed a few large sites (CNET being the latest one), and I put customer mail before any other mail, whether from friends, relatives, or colleagues, often replying within a couple of minutes. I think sites should aim for a 10-20 minute reply time during working hours. It's an unbelievable way to build loyalty and trust, I can tell you. Ask yourself this, "would I want to do business (or anything else) with a company that can't be bothered replying to an email from a customer?" BTW, Rudy, you cracked me up for a long time with the last bit: "The person who responds to the emails from the Web site is not authorized to actually speak to the customers? ". Oh boy, this has got to be the joke of the decade! Back to Internet business for dummies, morons!

login or register to post comments

Submitted by colin on November 20, 2000 - 17:57.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if email is subject to the same ownership rights as old-fashioned letters? If so, the _recipient_ is the owner of what's written, so Rudy can happily post what clueless company he's dealing with. Well, actually, I know this to be true in the U.S. I can't say anything for sure about Canada. Be happy -- it's companies like this that give us consultants such a lucrative market!

login or register to post comments

Clueless HTML coders

Submitted by MartinB on December 24, 2000 - 03:21.

Sometimes you truely wonder if the people who code the front end of large sites have ever learned HTML. It seems that they're so busy learning the whizzy stuff that they forget the basics.

Another example: A site I worked on, the developers were using images for bullet points. I questioned them about this, and their answer was:

Macs won't display the bulletpoint character (meaning &amp;#183, or &amp;middot;), so we have to use this workaround.

I should also point out that the only reason I got an explanation at all is that they viewed me as "technical", and as someone who always kicked them about cross-platform compatibility.

It would seem that their copy of "HTML for pretentious wankers" didn't contain the &lt;ul&gt; type. Given the number of places I found them hand-numbering lists, it wasn't the only list-type they were missing...

The only place I've ever seen unordered lists not working is where fonts have been used which didn't contain the bulletpoint character in their Mac version.

login or register to post comments

The access keys for this page are: ALT (Control on a Mac) plus:

evolt.orgEvolt.org is an all-volunteer resource for web developers made up of a discussion list, a browser archive, and member-submitted articles. This article is the property of its author, please do not redistribute or use elsewhere without checking with the author.