Forum Moderators: buckworks
In order to avoid crowds at the mall I decided to check the web site of a store and see if I could order what I wanted there. (Don't know if I can mention specifics here, but if so, it was the Limited's web site.) I went to their site, and apparently you need to have Java enabled to be able to do just about anything on their site. Not javascript, which I barely let run either, but Java. On every page I tried to view a message appeared on the very bottom of it saying that I needed to have a Java enabled browser. Of course, I'm sure not everyone would even think to scroll down to bottom to be able to see the message anyway. I kept trying to find any information about their clothes, but could find nothing at all, and I don't know how much of it was because I didn't have Java enabled, or because it just wasn't there. I also could not find any contact page to tell them about the problem.
Then I decided to find the Banana Rebublics site, I know they sell clothes on it, even really small sizes, which I have a hard time finding. I did a search on Google since I wasn't sure of their domain. Their site came up first in the results. I could see it was their index page too, not an internal page. When I tried to click on the link, I got a browser message asking about leaving a cookie, but when I said no, the message just would pop up again. I eventually had to close down my browser through Task Manager. Now, I understand that if and when I get ready to buy something from a site I will need to let a cookie be saved for the cart to work. But there is no reason for someone to have to take a cookie just to look at the home page of a site. And of course, since I couldn't even get into the site there was no way I could get contact information to complain to them about it.
I don't understand this situation at all. These are both really large companies - shouldn't they know better? Wouldn't you think they would hire someone who knew something about basic web site usability?
Now I am so irritated by both places that I don't even want to go into their brick and mortar stores to buy their products. And I have no way to let them know about it.
Ok, I'm finished now. Thank you for being patient with my ranting - I will now go back to being the fairly quiet, rarely ever complaining person I usually am here.
Now, I understand that if and when I get ready to buy something from a site I will need to let a cookie be saved for the cart to work. But there is no reason for someone to have to take a cookie just to look at the home page of a site. And of course, since I couldn't even get into the site there was no way I could get contact information to complain to them about it.
How annoyed would you be if you really couldn't deal with cookies, spent an age picking the right size, type and colour, reviewing shipping options etc. and then as you go to buy you get told "sorry you need cookies enabled to buy stuff"?
For me it would rank the same as trying to buy from a store only to find out they wont ship to anything other than the billing address of my CC!
-Tony
It also seems to me, the larger the company the less they care about such things..
A site should (in my opinion) be open to the widest possible user preferances, system & browser range.
If and when a function such as a cookie is needed, it should be stated clearly that this is a requirement .. then an informed decision can be made before proceeding. It is more likely that this would be accepted as you haven't previously annoyed the heck out of the "cookie conscience" folks.
In the case of Java & javascript.. alternatives should also be provided.
All in my opinion of course.
Added: Ah yes, Dreamquick... don't you love that! OR.. for International orders.. you find out after you have completed all.. that they don't do em!
admittedly those sites weren't very helpful in the way they'd set things up, but if you've disabled everything then you can't buy and if you can't buy, there's no incentive for them to let you in the site. they'll keep the sites as they are because they work just fine for the 99.9999% of users that can buy.
>>it should be stated clearly that this is a requirement <snip>
>>In the case of Java & javascript ... alternatives should
>>also be provided
alas, too much effort for too little reward. the number of people with everything switched off is so small the costs of developing alternative methods is prohibitive, even for larger stores. even if they did develop alternative methods, the same people would probably switch them off too.
>>For me it would rank the same as trying to buy from a
>>store only to find out they wont ship to anything other
>>than the billing address of my CC!
nothing wrong with that - it's one of the simplest and best anti-fraud measures available. it ensures only the cardholder receives the goods - if the order was fraudulent, the fraudster wouldn't get the goods and the cardholder can return them. i call it golden rule number 1 - only ship to the cardholder and always require a signature.
>>OR.. for International orders.. you find out after you
>>have completed all.. that they don't do em!
i hate that too. something i see quite a lot is american sites that have a shipping page with rates for the UK and europe, but when you go into the cart, they have the 50 US states in the drop down menu and you must select the state you're in even though you're not .....
For big-ticket items I can appreciate the necessity of this (you should have seen the hassle I had to go through to get my 18" flatscreen monitor delivered to work) but for the smaller items 90% of the site I use for repeat orders will allow me to send packages to an alternate address, even on the first order.
Draw your own conclusions from that one...
- Tony
