I agree with the idea of training employees to think of the computer they use at work like any other company-owned asset - it is not personal and should not be "toyed" with in any personal way. That's why I like tightly controlled terminal servers.
Re: The non-personal computer.
However, the comment about people needing to use IE because web sites are so poorly designed makes no sense at all and really has no place in the article. A poorly designed web site is a poorly designed web site. A web site that requires IE is not by that fact a poorly designed web site. That's like saying any web site that requires Real Audio or QuickTime to play audio clips from the site is a poorly designed web site. Web sites can require whatever components they deem necessary for the user to enjoy and/or utilize the full functionality of their site, like or not.
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
The Non-Personal Computer
I believe the author should have mentioned the difficulty that firms with offices in the Twin Towers experienced where data was only on a local hard drive, or worse, only on paper.
While we would all hope not to see more of that, the world we live in means organizations that don't build in Data Redundancy are taking unneccesarily great risks. Including risking their future.
Defining poorly defined
I call Web sites that exclude large numbers of potential viewers poorly designed. We can drill down to more specific details, such as Flash-only sites that exclude viewers without Flash loaded and users who don't like Flash sites, but I still claim that's a design issue - designers do not properly support the maximum number of viewers. IE only sites exclude too many viewers today.
In fairness to the designers themselves, however, such overall design failures tend to be introduced by idiot vice presidents, not the designers. Automatically excluding a sizable percentage of potential viewers (and customers) is stupid, excuse me, success challenged, no matter which definition of "poorly defined" we agree to use.
James
Post new comment