My apologies to Vic on this post.  I meant to say:
"I've already submitted my 4 point argument against this to
management."

In retrospect, I see that it could be interpreted as me being 
really snotty to Vic, which is not the case.  As you can see
from my omission and the punctuation, I was tired when I
wrote it.

George




George Toft wrote:
> 
> I've already submitted my 4 point argument against this,  Technically,
> it can never work on Netscape, which is a supported browser.
> 
> George
> 
> Victor Odhner wrote:
> >
> > George Toft wrote:
> > > But no!  The Business requires we capture
> > > *exactly* what the member saw.
> >
> > OK, the solution is obvious.
> >
> > * Send them an IMAGE containing the agreement.
> >   They'd have to set any options in a prior step
> >   so that they could be incorporated into the
> >   image, along with their personal information.
> >
> > * Make that image small enough to appear on a
> >   small screen, in black & white (for compactness
> >   and to eliminate any color-blindness issues),
> >   and use JavaScript to force the window size.
> >   There are some browser-dependent differences
> >   regarding window size controls.
> >
> > * Oh yeah:  if they have a "wrong" browser,
> >   or won't enable JavaScript, then they can't
> >   play.  (Management will probably decree that
> >   this is MSIE 5 or 6, but maybe you could push
> >   them to allow some others.  Each has to be
> >   tested.)
> >
> > * When they click on the I AGREE button within
> >   the image, they have agreed.  The POST will
> >   include the window size, and you have to
> >   log that to demonstrate they saw the whole
> >   thing.  I think we're getting into Imagemaps
> >   here, and the POST contents MUST be retained
> >   in the logging of the transaction to ensure
> >   you can demonstrate WHERE they clicked.
> >
> > Logging is essential here, since you must at
> > least document that the browser did request
> > downloading of that image.  The image can
> > have a serialized name, so the logged download
> > can be directly correlated with the archived
> > image of that user's personalized agreement.
> >
> > Legally, unless they concentrate on detailed
> > logging and well documented procedures, they
> > don't have a leg to stand on.
> >
> > Another approach of course is to send them
> > an executable program via download, that they
> > can use remotely to execute an agreement.
> >
> > Rotsa Ruck!
> >
> > Vic
> > ________________________________________________
> > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> >
> > PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> 
> PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss