What do you expect from a banks website?

T

tgabe213

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
3,684
We are having our site redone. The current site was designed back in 2000-2001. It doesn't look too bad, but it is starting to lack, especially compared to some others. We have 38 locations in the area. h t t p : / / w w w . t c n b . c o m

So, as a customer, what do you expect to see when you go to your banks website?

Also, if you have a link or an example of something you like to see would help as well.

Thanks!
 
Easy navigation and heavy security. As a person who uses online banking, I just want to get in and get out... I don't care for the little extra pretty stuff, I need a way to check balances, perform bank operations and get out.
 
I don't expect much really, just an easy to use site. I'd want to be able to easily check balances and transfer funds between accounts.
 
Usability, a logical interface layout, good design. It doesn't just mean 'is this pretty,' it also means 'can I find what I want easily?', 'how many pages do I have to hit before I get to what I want?', 'how easy is it to get to the most commonly used pages?'

Additionally, not restricting the user's ability to resize their text and making the site more accessible to many people would be good.
 
I'm a FirstTech customer. Their website is great.

Are you asking for a feature-by-feature list?
 
These are some things that I personally expect from banks in general (and a couple of specific notes about the site):

I expect really good browser support.

Besides the given, it MUST support Opera, Gecko browsers, Webkit browsers and KTML browsers.

I don't want to see "We support Firefox, but don't support Seamonkey, K-Meleon, Flock and Camino" even though they all use Gecko.

I don't want to see "We support Safari, but don't support Konqueror or Swift) even though Swift uses webkit and Konqueror can now use Webkit.

I don't want to see "We don't support KHTML browsers". Konqueror is a very capable browser.

I don't want to see "We only support the Windows version of browser X".

I don't want the site's browser detection blocking future versions of a browser by default. Future versions of a browser should be considered safe until determined otherwise.

I don't want to see Opera and Safari (for example) getting different content than Firefox.

I don't want to see the site split up between 2 different domains and affect cookie security differences between browsers.

I want to be able to log in without having Javscript turned on. (Do the validation on the server). Banks are known for having shitty JS form validation.

I don't want to have to download a Java applet, download a cert and import it into an applet just to check my account.

I want the site to use stylesheets that use "@media print" for printing things. That way, when you choose to print, only the (checking account history table for example) is printed (with the account number being omitted). Providing a csv file is not a good enough solution.

I don't want to see the site use any Flash or Java applets.

I don't want the site using any non-user-initiated pop-ups.

I don't want the site using Javascript onclick handlers when I click on links. (It disrupts my tabbed browsing experience.)


Contact info on the site should be right out in the open. An email address should be provided so that one can use an email client to ask for help. It's O.K. to give guidance on what the person should provide when sending a message, but don't use a contact form if you can help it. If you do use a contact form, don't make the person fill out a lot of crap. Also, if you must limit the size of the message, don't make the limit small and do the validation on the server. Javascript validators often don't take into account textarea newline differences between browsers. This means that a character counter might work as expected in one browser, but have a lower limit in another. Further, there needs to be a way to contact the webmaster directly instead of going through customer service.

If I visit the site, I don't want to see any Javascript errors or security warnings pop up in the error console.

If the bank decides to use a DHTML menu library, they should make sure it works right in all the browsers first. And, they should keep the library updated. If that can't happen, menus like that should be avoided or written in-house. (I don't want to see "We get the menu library from somewhere else and we can't do anything about it".)

(The Hiermenus that tcnb currently uses are known to be buggy and not support Opera properly. Look at Opera's browser.js to see workarounds for Hiermenus. The "bank online sign in" menu doesn't work in Opera 9.27 or Opera 9.5 and you can't sign in at all.)

The site should be checked in the latest non-stable versions of browsers to watch for big changes. (Look at tcnb in Firefox 3 beta 5 or the latest trunk version for example. )
 
I actually work at an online-only bank, no branches. I would say our design is pretty slick. It's basically "consolidated" when you first login so you can see all of your accounts and their available balances.

Also I like Wells Fargo's interface quite a bit, everything is right there...transfers, billpay, all that stuff.
 
my bank is pretty good, the website is hugly as hell, but it works great, i can do everything i want from it, and not ever have to enable scripts in firefox, or disable adblock (ie: citicards website)..

Speaking of that if you want a perfect example of what NOT to do, go see www.citicards.com and see how shitty the site is if you have adblock, noscript and flashblock enabled.
 
Shadow2531 said:
I don't want the site using any non-user-initiated pop-ups.

I don't want the site using Javascript onclick handlers when I click on links. (It disrupts my tabbed browsing experience.)
Click to expand...

spotdog14 said:
my bank is pretty good, the website is hugly as hell, but it works great, i can do everything i want from it, and not ever have to enable scripts in firefox, or disable adblock (ie: citicards website)..

Speaking of that if you want a perfect example of what NOT to do, go see www.citicards.com and see how shitty the site is if you have adblock, noscript and flashblock enabled.
Click to expand...

You guys touched on one of the biggest issues I have with pretty much all banking sites I have used. Javascript and client-side validation, and then when you click the button and nothing happens (or the little frame the login fields are in produces a Page Not Found error or similar), I get a little annoyed because I need to enable Javascript for that site.
 
I use wellsfargo and also like it.
sometimes the navigation gets confusing, but its not too pretty and it does what I expect it to do, and nothing more. be careful of over design and making it all "shiny".
I think making a website compatible with every single latest flavor browser of the week is a waste of time. keep the design simple and as close to standards as possible and dont worry about it.
 
Try not to use any iframes (especially to embed an https login form page in an http page).

Standards mode between 2 browsers is a lot closer than Quirks mode between 2 browsers. Use a doctype that triggers standards mode. document.compatMode should always return CSS1Compat. If you don't get that, something's wrong.

Keep the page source clean and nicely formatted. This will make it easier for others to analyze the page if there's a bug. The easier it is to analyze and the less time it takes, the more solutions you'll get for free.

I think making a website compatible with every single latest flavor browser of the week is a waste of time. keep the design simple and as close to standards as possible and dont worry about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, doing that, you can often get good browser support automatically. Although, it's still very important to check in lots of browsers (as you're developing). There are many things that the standards are not clear on and you need all the browsers as a check and balance system, so you don't automatically assume that one browser's behavior is the correct one. They all have bugs.

Ideally, a bank site should have absolutely zero browser detection. Knowing that you can go to the site with any browser you want and have the browser do as best as it can do, is awesome.
 
Shadow2531 said:
Besides the given, it MUST support Opera, Gecko browsers, Webkit browsers and KTML browsers.
Click to expand...
Why?

What priority would you give your list of features? If a bank only had enough staff to support two of the browsers you list, which ones should it be? If a bank had only enough staff to either add features for banking (like loan calculators, graphing, or financial integration) or technical features to support browsing, which would you choose, and why?
 
- doesn't require JS or Flash to work properly
- doesn't store any cookies on my computer
- must verify my logon every time using a challenge/response question along with my password.
- strong encrypted connection goes without saying
- intuitive navigation
- i should be able to make deposits/withdrawals/transfers with out too much hassle.
 
Thanks for the input guys. Keep em coming. I'm getting a good list. I'm pretty sure I was put in the list of people to meet with a company since I am the only one who knows ANYTHING regarding web development.
 
Shadow2531 said:
Yes, doing that, you can often get good browser support automatically. Although, it's still very important to check in lots of browsers (as you're developing). There are many things that the standards are not clear on and you need all the browsers as a check and balance system, so you don't automatically assume that one browser's behavior is the correct one. They all have bugs.

Ideally, a bank site should have absolutely zero browser detection. Knowing that you can go to the site with any browser you want and have the browser do as best as it can do, is awesome.
Click to expand...

Id check with IE and FF and let the rest roll the dice. Testing and debugging and putting in browser checking code for every flavor of the week is a waste of time.
 
mikeblas said:
Why?
Click to expand...


To do otherwise would be a possible usability issue (mild or severe depending on the person and what browser they're being forced to use). Forcing someone to use a different browser than they normally do is not good. Even with that aside, it's discrimination. Also, at least one browser besides IE has to be supported. Not everyone has Windows.

What priority would you give your list of features?
Click to expand...

Most of the things I listed should be high priority from the beginning because they pertain to site usability. Nicely-formatted markup in the source would have lower priority for example. But, that might come about automatically.

If a bank only had enough staff to support two of the browsers you list, which ones should it be?
Click to expand...

Well, if you're on Windows for example, you can have Safari Win32, Firefox, Opera, and IE all open at the same time. If you make a change, you can (if needed) reload in each to double-check. Just doing that, you cover Trident browsers, Presto browsers, Gecko browsers and Webkit browsers. You could even have the latest trunk or beta versions of some of them open and quickly check. You can even switch modes in IE8 beta. You could even load Kubuntu in a VM and test Konqueror, or install it with KDE Win32. Or, if you're on Mac, you easily have Webkit, Presto and Gecko. On linux you can have the same. You can even simulate mobile phones in Opera if needed.

So, one web developer could cover a lot of ground just doing that. Even if the developer just codes, 1 QA could do the checking if that's all that was available. You'd have to make an effort to not support other browsers.

Now, if the site had problems in more than 2 browsers at one time (equally severe, but different issues) and I could take a look at just 2 of the browser problems, which browsers would I pick? Well, I would fix the two that affect the most members. Then, I'd get right on to fixing the other issues. A member's issue doesn't just get dismissed because they use a certain browser. Their issue might take longer to fix if you're busy fixing something else, but it should not be dismissed. And, if you can, provide the user with a workaround for the time being.

I can understand being able to only support two browser issues at a time, but to say that browser C will be ignored even when there are no current issues in browser A and B ...

Most banks will answer your question with IE and Firefox though. That might have to do with member browser stats and market share, but if 1 member uses a certain browser, that browser needs to be supported. The site should be ready for new members using whatever browser they use. Either that, or the person should be informed before becoming a member.

Note that I'm referring to bugs in the site. If the browser clearly has a bug, that's up to the browser provider to fix, unless you have time to workaround it. But, if the dev knows about it, (s)he should try to take the time to file a report. I'm also not referring to ancient browsers that are not supported anymore.

If a bank had only enough staff to either add features for banking (like loan calculators, graphing, or financial integration) or technical features to support browsing, which would you choose, and why?
Click to expand...

That really depends on the features being compared, but sort out the technical browsing features first and then move on to new features. Unless you can do both at the same time, fix usability first, then add features. But, it never hurts to ask your members what they want.

In short though, supporting lots of browsers doesn't require a lot of resources if you build the site with that in mind.

Now, if you built the site just for IE or just for IE and Firefox, you've dugg yourself in a hole. Then, these questions become a big concern because adding support for other browsers is not easy.

Luckily, Firefox's standards support is pretty good and other browsers will a lot of times be fine with its code (as long as you don't assume that Firefox has zero bugs and as long as you don't use any of Firefox's non-standard extensions).
 
Monkey God said:
Id check with IE and FF and let the rest roll the dice.
Click to expand...

You have to be careful when doing that though. You could be working around a Firefox standards bug where the workaround breaks in browsers that don't have the bug. It's good to have other browsers to keep FF in line.
 
maybe but the bottom line is you only so much time to make stuff browser compatible, so pick the two most commonly used browsers. if you find a bug in a browser, avoid code that checks for the browser and uses other code, instead avoid whatever it is that causes the bug.
 
Maybe it's too obvious to mention, but above all things I need to feel secure when using a banking website. To me this is a number of things, pretty much none of them actually apply to actual site security.

NO broken images what-so-ever.

Nice layout / style, no table layouts with border=5 crap.

Basically nice XHTML / CSS layout.

User interaction is quick and responsive. Clicking broken links / links that do nothing, make me concerned about what is going on in the background.

Site goes out of its way to visually protect my information - for example, if when logging in you state you're on a public computer, text is smaller on screen and account numbers / names are hidden from immediate view.

I would agree with most of what Shadow is saying as well. Except I wouldn't go so far as to make ALL browsers supported a mission critical endeavor. I'd limit your browser support to your core demographics, and slowly branch out to what you think you need after that. Simply having 1 user running a browser to make it required is not enough imo.

Also, while the process of supporting a huge number of browsers sounds quick and painless from Shadow's description, it is most definitely NOT quick and painless. In fact usually it's completely the opposite of that.
 
Shadow2531 said:
In short though, supporting lots of browsers doesn't require a lot of resources if you build the site with that in mind.
Click to expand...
One would like to think so, but in the real world, it just doesn't work out that way... particularly as the site starts using more advanced features.
 
NickTheNut said:
Also, while the process of supporting a huge number of browsers sounds quick and painless from Shadow's description, it is most definitely NOT quick and painless. In fact usually it's completely the opposite of that.
Click to expand...

My point was that you can get far by supporting just a few rendering engines, which in turn will give you support for a huge number of browsers (because lots of them use Gecko, a few use Webkit and a few use Presto etc.).

I also meant that it's quick and painless to check a page with each of those few rendering engines to discover if there's a problem. Actually resolving the issue cross-rendering-engine-wise may be a pain in the ass or it may be effortless depending on the situation and how much you know the bugs and quirks each browser has.

You do what you can with the time you have. But, it would be a shame for a bank building a new website to not use it as an advantage to have better rendering/js engine support.
 
I agree that it would be a shame to not have the best supported website possible - especially if it's going through a complete rebuild.

Only thing is that if you're going through the process to even look at all the various browsers, than you might as well go through the process of correcting any bugs that come up. Those two actions go hand-in-hand.

And yes, it can be a pain, or it can be easy - but it's pretty much a crap shoot one way or another. So if you decide to go through the process of supporting multiple browsers, you have to be able to set aside the time for a worst case scenario. Which could be a whole helluva lot of time.

I am definitely not against the process of supporting as many browsers as possible 0 if not 'all' of them. I think it's a great idea. I am just stating my opinion that it comes down to the companies discretion of how many they can afford to continually and actively support.
 
mikeblas said:
One would like to think so, but in the real world, it just doesn't work out that way... particularly as the site starts using more advanced features.
Click to expand...

To support that, look at !ymail beta. It's a complex pile of js. They have some resources and have trouble keeping the thing working in anything, but IE. It can work pretty good in FF sometimes, but they break it all the time. It's so fragile that they can't even add support for other browsers right.

Of course, they probably developed it only for IE first, spent enormous resources hacking in Firefox support and now they're just too exhausted to hack in support for anything else.

If the bank doesn't have the resources to support other browsers, it should at least make some design decisions in the beginning so that it's easy to extend support if it gets more resources. And, it shouldn't block unsupported browsers. At least let them fend for themselves.
 
I think blocking unsupported browsers is the right idea. It minimizes support calls and reduces security risks.
 
mikeblas said:
I think blocking unsupported browsers is the right idea. It minimizes support calls and reduces security risks.
Click to expand...

I agree. In any other situation, I would suggest not blocking a specific browser. However when it comes to someones financials, it is probably better to simply outright block the browser.
 
mikeblas said:
I think blocking unsupported browsers is the right idea. It minimizes support calls and reduces security risks.
Click to expand...

I definitely don't like that. Blocking an unsupported browser assumes too much about the browser's security and the browser's ability to function on the site. It would do more harm than good. And, since the unsupported browser isn't even tested, it'd be a totally uninformed action.

I could see warning about specific builds of a browser (even a supported browser) that are known to have a security vulnerability that affects the member's safety on the site though.
 
A logon screen available no matter how I land there.

Most likely if I am a customer, I don't really care about all of your marketing crap, and really just want to logon no matter how I got there. So I do a Google search on TXNB and land on some obscure page you just updated- I want to login from there..

I want to see a scan of all of the checks that I have written (ever) and have a bottom line summary page. I run all of my finances online, so at the end of the year, I want to click on a pic of a check and see what it was written for, which is a lot longer timeframe than alot of banks provide. I mean, c'mon- storage is so damn cheap, add a freakin' perk- keep images of all checks available to all customers...
 
Oh- in my humble opinion, loose the dropdown links across the middle of the page- focus on trying to get a simple navigation module that is the same across the site.
 
mikeblas said:
Quite the contrary; it assumes nothing.
Click to expand...

If you support just 2 browsers and block the rest, you're saying that it doesn't matter if another browser works fine and securely with the site with zero additional effort. You're gonna block it anyway.

Also, if you're blocking other browsers for security purposes, it'd be wise to not block ones that are more secure (if any) than the ones you're supporting.

Of course, blocking browsers can be additional work in itself. Depending on how much trouble you go through to stop a browser from getting in, it might not be worth it. And, if you only do simple blocking, it might be a waste of time as it'd be too easy to work around.
 
You can apply online, but you still need to go in to any location to finish the account opening anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top