Slashdot Mirror
FEMA Demands Use of IE To File Online Katrina Claims
WebHostingGuy writes "As reported by MSNBC, if you survived the hurricane and are a Mac, Linux or Firefox user you cannot file a claim online. Further, you must have javascript enabled or face rejection. From the site: 'We are sorry for not being able to proceed your requests because you have failed our tests.' Opera and Netscape don't work either." Also reported at InformationWeek. From that story: "To file a claim online at FEMA's Individual Assistance Center, where citizens can apply for government help, the browser must be IE 6.0 or later with JavaScript enabled. That cuts out everyone running Linux or the Mac operating systems, as well as Windows users running alternate browsers such as Firefox or Opera. When TechWeb tested the site using Windows XP and Firefox 1.0.6, the message 'In order to use this site, you must have JavaScript Enabled and Internet Explorer version 6. Download it from Microsoft or call 1-800-621-FEMA (3362) to register' popped up on the screen." Update: 09/08 13:48 GMT by Z : Added word 'Online' to title to clarify story.
the best part is that using IE7 gets you the same errorpage. Those guys just know everything about browsers, don't they...
./R My blog
Well he did appoint the man in charge, someone who had been on the board of International Arabian Horse Association. He seems to have left there under a cloud about contributions to their legal defense fund and immediately got a job as FEMA director. I think he is highly qualified in disaster planning, unfortunately not disaster releif planning.
http://www.denverpost.com/katrina/ci_2999761
I think Bush can take some heat for this kind of miss-use of the public trust. These are not choice political plums to be given to big contributers or supporters but to qualified hard working capable individuals with credentials for the job. Especially when the lives of our mother and fathers and sons and brothers and daughters and uncles and neices are involved.
The buck needs to stop where the fundemental problems stem from, not only where the problems show up.
Exactly. I started my current job a little over a year ago, maintaining and developing a public website for a multimillion-pound company.
The MD is a raving MS fanboy, and shortly after arriving I was informed in no small measure that I was developing for IE, and "if the site doesn't work in any of those other browsers, who cares".
(One of the funny things is, we actually produce Mac versions of some of our products, but the MD apparently doesn't care that most of those users wouldn't be able to see our site (or assumes they'll download IE/Mac, because it's Microsoft, so it must always be the best option).)
Happily (and because my boss(es) don't know any better), I've coded everything to standards and used a few quick CSS/markup hacks to get everything still looking nice in IE.
Since I started we've had three "it'll never happen" situations with (potentially extremely profitable) users using different browsers or OSes, and happily the site's worked perfectly for them.
We've also had one "it'll never happen" situation where I did actually give in and do it the way the Board specified (dynamic content served by ASP.NET instead of Perl, on a server too old to support ASP.NET reliably). Because our (cheap, crappy) hosting contract is on a Linux machine, we have to host all ASP.NET content on another (in-house) server, and seamlessly (heh, make that "as seamlessly as we can") transfer users between the main part of the site (static HTML on Apache/Linux) and the dynamic pages (ASP.NET/Windows Server).
Predictably enough the tiny pipe into the inhouse servers went down, and we ended up with a convoluted sequence of events that lead to us needing to host an ASP.NET page on the (external) Linux server. Due to the crappiness of the hosting contract they were unable to offer (or the MD was unwilling to pay) for the service, so the site had huge sections missing for several days, mostly important advertising campaign landing-pages which provide the majority of marketing leads for the company.
Had I been allowed to develop the content in the language I specified (Perl/PHP, simply for the portability), this would never have happened - we could have transferred the dynamic pages to the Linux server at no extra cost (in fact they would probably have already been there), and the site would have carried on as normal.
The morals of the story are this:
Never disobey your boss on technical matters, even when he has no fucking clue what he's babbling about. That's how you get fired.
If you can possibly obey the letter of his instructions (but disobey the spirit) and do it the right way, go for it - just cover your arse and don't spend an unreasonable amount of extra time.
People who know nothing about technical matters should let their fucking techies make technical decisions. You pay them for a reason, and if anyone could do their job why not fire them and hire a schoolkid for a fraction of the money?
"It'll never happen" scenarios pop up 100% of the time, given enough time. Your techies know this, and will sensibly plan for it. With sufficiently good techies (and budget) you never suffer the consequences of a bad technical decision, so you don't and won't.
In other words, get good techies, then get the fuck out of the way and let them do their job.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself