Fwd: Create a Konqueror eBusiness Website 'Bug' Database?

[Thomas Zander]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Interresting Idea...

- ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Create a Konqueror eBusiness Website 'Bug' Database?
Date: Sunday 22 September 2002 08:45
From: Tom <tomdeckert at uwalumni.com>
To: koffice at mail.kde.org

Hi,

Please let me know if a different mail list is more apropriate
for this post.


I do all my general surfing with Konqueror, but
when I try to do eBusiness, I generally run into problems.  I
think that the ability to conduct eBusiness would strongly
influence people's decision to choose or avoid Konqueror, so
I decided to write.



Would it make sense for Konqueror to add a formalized
"eBusiness-Site-Doesn't-Work" database beside the
current bug reporting database?   Would this be an effective
way to focus ongoing Konqueror development?  I would expect
bugs in either database could optionally refer to specific
bugs in the other.  Basically, this database would contain
the information:  "We know site 'foo' does not work with
Konqueror versions X.Y, because of 'bar'.  Behaviour you
would see is 'blah'.  This is/not easily fixable because of
'yada yada yada'."


Then buq squashing or new development could be aimed at
'site squashing'.  How many people would love to say
"Squashed Pacific Gas and Electric today."?  (Caveat: Just
an example; I have no idea how well their site works with
Konqueror.)


Pro's:
	o) For users of older versions, it might make it
           easier to learn "Oh, that site doesn't work with
           versions of Konqueror prior to X.Y, but upgrading
	   should fix it.".
	o) Might make it easier to distinguish the *intentionally*
	   Linux unfriendly sites from the *unintentionally*, allowing
	   Linux users to choose between boycotting and educating these
	   sites.


Con's:
	o) Web sites change!  But, if a site is continually changing
	   in ways that break Konqueror, we might be able to take
	   it as a sign the site is *intentionally* Linux/Konqueror
	   unfriendly.
	o) The number of eBusiness sites is large.  However, I think
	   it should be prioritizable - probably starting with any
	   large banks or utilities which don't already work.


Here in Australia, my list of problem sites starts with St.George Bank,
www.seek.com.au, and Telstra, but continues on from there.


To summarize, IMHO being able to conduct eBusiness is often a
primary reason for people to choose a browser.  Therefore, it
is a very good way to improve acceptance of Konqueror.  Hence,
it is important to know, in a formal manner, which sites do or
don't work with Konqueror.


Thanks for your attention.

- -------------------------------------------------------

- -- 
Thomas Zander   zander at planescape.com
We are what we pretend to be
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9jWsrCojCW6H2z/QRAnNtAKCchEUcTKkS67ZIIN60qfIfEgiE+wCg1YSv
IdC0xN0ohXcbbWBRw05e36U=
=heC/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----