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
(text/plain)