Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FEMA Demands Use of IE To File Online Katrina Claims

Posted by Zonk on Thu Sep 08, 2005 07:51 AM
from the small-but-annoying-details dept.
WebHostingGuy writes "As reported by MSNBC, if you survived the hurricane and are a Mac, Linux or Firefox user you cannot file a claim online. Further, you must have javascript enabled or face rejection. From the site: 'We are sorry for not being able to proceed your requests because you have failed our tests.' Opera and Netscape don't work either." Also reported at InformationWeek. From that story: "To file a claim online at FEMA's Individual Assistance Center, where citizens can apply for government help, the browser must be IE 6.0 or later with JavaScript enabled. That cuts out everyone running Linux or the Mac operating systems, as well as Windows users running alternate browsers such as Firefox or Opera. When TechWeb tested the site using Windows XP and Firefox 1.0.6, the message 'In order to use this site, you must have JavaScript Enabled and Internet Explorer version 6. Download it from Microsoft or call 1-800-621-FEMA (3362) to register' popped up on the screen." Update: 09/08 13:48 GMT by Z : Added word 'Online' to title to clarify story.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • you know... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shads (4567) * <shadus@s[ ]us.org ['had' in gap]> on Thursday September 08 2005, @07:53AM (#13508292) Homepage Journal
    ... i'd just love to know what feature they're requiring that everyone else DOESN'T have... I wonder if opera using it's browser masking could do it?
    • Re:you know... (Score:5, Informative)

      by arkanes (521690) <arkanes@NOsPaM.gmail.com> on Thursday September 08 2005, @07:58AM (#13508339) Homepage
      It's using some retarded fucking captcha implementation using IE XML data islands instead of using one of the 40 million scripts that don't require brower support. Fuckers.

      I hate this stupid shit. And I know it's not even malicious, because I've seen it happen before at government agencies. It's out and out incompetence. Although it seems that given all the other crap FEMA has fucked up lately, this won't even register to most people.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:03AM (#13508400)
        Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
        • by drooling-dog (189103) on Thursday September 08 2005, @09:10AM (#13509031)
          Either way, somebody's in line for another Medal of Honor...
        • Re:you know... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by drooling-dog (189103) on Thursday September 08 2005, @09:14AM (#13509068)
          Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

          Actually, when the incompetence is deliberate (as in the loading of all of the top jobs with starkly unqualified political cronies) it is malice.

            • Re:you know... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Thursday September 08 2005, @10:07AM (#13509522) Homepage

              Wrong.

              When your concept of "statesmanship" is paying off your political cronies regardless of competence, that IS malice.

              The hallmark of the state is ALWAYS malice AND incompetence. Heinlein was wrong as it applies to the state.
        • Re:you know... (Score:5, Informative)

          by pixelpusher220 (529617) on Thursday September 08 2005, @09:20AM (#13509106)
          Before we go off the high board (ok, maybe while we're in the air before hitting water anyway...)

          Link [arstechnica.com] and the below snippet:

          This is a case many of us are all to familiar with. One where the 'product' is being used in an environment that it was not intended.

          "Mike Quealy, a FEMA spokesperson, explained to me that they are aware of the issue, and are currently working on a application that supports all of the most popular browsers. Quealy said that the application in question was originally an in-house tool, meant to be used by call center people. Internet Explorer was the official in-house browser, so the application was coded with IE in mind."

          So we have an *INTERNAL* app that was opened to the public, thus adding new browsers for which it was not designed to it's possible clients.

          It's also a good lesson for designing things even when you *know* the environment in which it will be used...that can change and it's best to work with standards rather than the easiest, but perhaps proprietary choice.


              • Re:you know... (Score:5, Interesting)

                by StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) on Thursday September 08 2005, @09:57AM (#13509437)
                Well he did appoint the man in charge, someone who had been on the board of International Arabian Horse Association. He seems to have left there under a cloud about contributions to their legal defense fund and immediately got a job as FEMA director. I think he is highly qualified in disaster planning, unfortunately not disaster releif planning.

                http://www.denverpost.com/katrina/ci_2999761 [denverpost.com]

                I think Bush can take some heat for this kind of miss-use of the public trust. These are not choice political plums to be given to big contributers or supporters but to qualified hard working capable individuals with credentials for the job. Especially when the lives of our mother and fathers and sons and brothers and daughters and uncles and neices are involved.

                The buck needs to stop where the fundemental problems stem from, not only where the problems show up.
                • Re:you know... (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Thursday September 08 2005, @10:04AM (#13509497) Homepage

                  I seem to recall a phrase from a President...

                  Something about a buck stopping somewhere...

                  Especially since the bucks responsible for upgrading the levee system were PERSONALLY slashed from the budget and diverted to Iraq - which in itself was a fucking moronic operation.

                  Not to mention the moronic folding of FEMA into DHS,as has been pointed out by every commentator in the last week. Which was no surprise to me, since FEMA's primary mandate is to secure the state, not the citizenry, in an emergency. In fact, the only "emergency" FEMA is mandated to "manage" is a threat against the state. It's no accident they're the ones with the authority to do all the things the conspiracy buffs like to cite.
      • by elrous0 (869638) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:09AM (#13508454)
        It's out and out incompetence.

        Would you expect any less from FEMA?

        I tell you, if they get any more imcompetent, George Bush is going to have to give them a medal.

        -Eric

      • by Sad Loser (625938) * on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:53AM (#13508892)

        Surely they can be nailed on the accessibility.
        There is a nice helpful link [fema.gov] on every page saying that they are committed to accessibility.
        There is even a email address, to allow people who think that accessibility to this site is sub-optimal, to contact them.
        If you know anyone who feels this way, maybe they should send an email to
        FEMAOPA@dhs.gov
        and I'm sure they will be pleased to sort it out.
    • Re:you know... (Score:5, Informative)

      by matth (22742) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:02AM (#13508380) Homepage
      Yes... there is no "feature" If you install a plugin that makes firefox read as "Internet Exploder" or use Opera's masking the site works.. so umm yeah this looks not good.
        • Re:you know... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mark-t (151149) <markt@lynx.bc . c a> on Thursday September 08 2005, @09:29AM (#13509173) Journal
          Or, more likely, they merely copied and pasted code they obtained from somewhere else that appeared to do what they want, and as it happens, the code they copied was specifically designed to exclude non windows, non IE users.

          Not that being this stupid in any way is any more tolerable than if they had done it deliberately, but still...

    • Re:you know... (Score:5, Informative)

      by TripMaster Monkey (862126) * on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:03AM (#13508395)

      I wonder if opera using it's browser masking could do it?

      Don't know about Opera, but Firefox running the User Agent Switcher set to IE 6 works just fine (tested it myself), so I would assume that Opera with browser masking would work as well.

      Anyone out there with Opera installed that could give us a definitive answer?
      • by cgenman (325138) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:29AM (#13508669) Homepage
        Seems to work fine in opera 7 so long as you Identify as MSIE 6.0. No problem with the capcha or anything.

        Of course, I didn't finish the registration process fully, so I can't say for sure. But it looks like the broweser banning is just a choice on their part rather than a technical limitation.
    • Re:you know... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ramunas (771197) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:20AM (#13508571) Homepage
      the best part is that using IE7 gets you the same errorpage. Those guys just know everything about browsers, don't they...
    • by Alien54 (180860) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:24AM (#13508617) Journal
      is for Microsoft to release a version update, say to 6.2, that would automatically install through auto-update, and break on the site.

      As they say, not FEMAs fault

  • by irving47 (73147) on Thursday September 08 2005, @07:54AM (#13508304) Homepage
    "George Bush doesn't care about Mac people!"
  • ADA? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fossa (212602) <.pat7. .at. .gmx.net.> on Thursday September 08 2005, @07:55AM (#13508311) Journal

    Doesn't the disabilities act apply to FEMA? And doesn't that require a certain level of website?

    • Re:ADA? (Score:5, Informative)

      by FuzzyBad-Mofo (184327) * <fuzzybad&gmail,com> on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:12AM (#13508501)

      The Section 508 accessibility [section508.gov] guidelines are a requirement for all U.S. government sites. I have helped to develop several .gov sites, and we take 508 compliance very seriously. I think the people responsible for www.fema.gov are about to get dragged over the coals, and rightly so. Making their website work in one *one* browser is the antithesis of accessibility.

      • Re:ADA? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Iriel (810009) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:26AM (#13508632) Homepage
        Not only that, but I frankly find it deplorable that FEMA is treating its website from a business perspective.

        In a company, somone can find it most beneficial and cost effective (sometimes, wrongly so) to support the browser that has 80-90% market share (I'm probably off on that stat, but that's not the point). However, when it comes to providing aid to hurricane victims, the government is simply not allowed to only provide to 80-90% of the people.

        There should not be any development costs even considered. Make the website work for everyone because EVERYONE needs the help. This is aid, not sales.
    • Re:ADA? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by scottennis (225462) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:21AM (#13508586) Homepage
      From the FEMA website:

      "The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is committed to providing access to our web pages for individuals with disabilities, both members of the public and Federal employees.

      To meet this commitment, we will comply with the requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Section 508 requires that individuals with disabilities, who are members of the public seeking information or services from us, have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to that provided to the public who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on us. Section 508 also requires us to ensure that Federal employees with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of information and data by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on us.

      If you use assistive technology (such as a Braille reader, a screen reader, TTY, etc.) and the format of any material on our web sites interfere with your ability to access the information, please contact FEMAOPA@dhs.gov for assistance. To enable us to respond in a manner most helpful to you, please indicate the nature of your accessibility problem, the preferred format in which to receive the material, the web address of the requested material, and your contact information."
  • One line of code. (Score:5, Informative)

    by TripMaster Monkey (862126) * on Thursday September 08 2005, @07:55AM (#13508312)

    From TFA:
    Some people also have been having some success using Firefox and the User Agent Switcher extension and setting it to IE6. I tried this and was able to get a little further in the process, but stopped before actually having to fill out a form. I'll leave that to those who really need help.
    Hmm...I tested this myself, and with the User Agent Switcher set to IE, there's no problems at
    all. Seems to me that the problem with non-IE browsers is a purely manufactured one...one that could be fixed by editing one lne of code.
    • by stecoop (759508) * on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:12AM (#13508496) Journal
      one that could be fixed by editing one lne of code

      I think the problem and solution may not be related. Hang with me on this one. We are asking the browser to the website what brand of browser it is and then the website determines what you can and cannot see simply based on that one piece of information. It should be a little different, the web site asks, can you handle JavaScript and a reply of yes from the browser. The website will now send you JavaScript info. Can you handle frames, DHTML, CSS and the list goes on as new technologies are added. So your browser would have an XML sheet of the response it should give to questions. Don't like JavaScript edit it to NO and the website should handle the request properly anyway.

      I really think that the User Agent string should be abandoned to prevent poor coupling and cohesion of website and browsers. This User Agent string should be replaced with a list of browser capabilities.
      • Re:One line of code. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Bogtha (906264) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:39AM (#13508757)

        We are asking the browser to the website what brand of browser it is and then the website determines what you can and cannot see simply based on that one piece of information. It should be a little different, the web site asks, can you handle JavaScript and a reply of yes from the browser. The website will now send you JavaScript info. Can you handle frames, DHTML, CSS and the list goes on as new technologies are added.

        This kind of thing already exists. You don't ask if Javascript is available, you code your HTML as if it weren't, and make your Javascript alter the document structure. If the Javascript executes, then the structure is how you want, if the Javascript doesn't execute, then it remains in the compatible state.

        Finer-grained control is possible too - Google for object detection versus browser detection. There's also DOM interfaces to check for support for certain things, but they aren't widely supported. "DHTML" is nothing but a buzzword - it's not something a browser can support, frames already have a fallback method, and so on.

        I really think that the User Agent string should be abandoned to prevent poor coupling and cohesion of website and browsers. This User Agent string should be replaced with a list of browser capabilities.

        The User-Agent header is important for working around actual browser bugs, e.g. not being able to cope with compressed content correctly despite claiming to do so.

      • Re:One line of code. (Score:5, Informative)

        by cgenman (325138) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:43AM (#13508792) Homepage
        On the one hand, I agree that such a system is how an ideal world would operate. On the other hand, I'm guessing a typical conversation would go:

        Server: "Can you handle PNG's?"
        Client: "Yes"
        Server: "Are you sure?"
        Client: "Yes"
        Server: "The entire spec?"
        Client: "Yes"
        Server: "...Are you I.E. 5?"
        Client: "Yes"
        Server: "You're a dirty liar."

        Oh, sure I.E. thinks it handles CSS properly. It will probably even tell you it handles tables properly. It just doesn't.

        I'll be happy the day we can ditch the user agent string. But then again, I'll be happy the day we can use alpha transparency in a PNG on the web.
  • /. it (Score:5, Funny)

    by valentyn (248783) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:05AM (#13508415) Homepage
    Now we Linux and Mac users from all over the world can try to test the site. That will at least help stress the servers to the point that simply no one will be able to file their requests.
  • FEMA demands? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joshsnow (551754) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:09AM (#13508459) Journal
    "FEMA Demands Use of IE"

    Is this FEMA demanding? Or an ignorant IT services supplier supplying a solution which only works on the IE6 platform? Or (horror of horrors) is this system an in-house job?

    Maybe FEMA need to revist their IT procurement strategy - if they have one.

    In a situation like this, I would have thought that every effort would be made to make the application process accessible to everybody.
  • by Comatose51 (687974) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:36AM (#13508731) Homepage
    Opera and Netscape don't work either.

    That's not true. Opera works. I spent last weekend volunteering at the Reunion Arena shelter in Dallas. We booted one machine with Knoppix because the Windows install was bad. Mozilla and Konquerer failed to load the page correctly. So I downloaded Opera and it worked. Unless FEMA have gone out of their way to eliminate Opera, you should be able to register with Opera. In other words, there is nothing on that page that Opera cannot handle. We've registered a few hundred people already and a few with Opera.

    The stupid site really ticks me off. Even with IE you will have problems. I think they did the stupid thing in ASP. Every stupid action you take requires exchange of states between you and the server. If you click before that's complete it will give you and error and you might have to start all over. There was nothing on that page that could not have been done with simple HTML

    BTW, yesterday was the first day FEMA started working fully in Dallas. Their computers couldn't network properly so they had to take over OUR PCs to register people by doing exactly the same thing we've been doing. Not only that, they only want those computers, which do not belong to them, to be used only for FEMA registration. In the words of a FEMA worker, "People need money not email or Internet." That would be great if they all knew where the family was or our government was competent enough to provide them with that information. Unfortunately, most people have to look for their family on their own on the Internet.

  • by dieScheisse (554308) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:52AM (#13508881)
    Just to add to this story...I was listening to a local talk radio station on my way home from work yesterday. They played an interview with a woman who was extremely frustrated, almost to the point of tears, with FEMA and their apparent lack of knowledge on the situation of people displaced by Katrina.

    She called them in order to make a claim and they asked her for her address so they could send her the required paperwork (not sure HOW she called them). She told them she no longer had an address as her home no longer existed. They then asked for her home phone number so they could call her back...she again informned them she no longer had a home. They then asked for her cell phone number. She again told them there was no cell phone service where she is located. They then asked her for her fax number...then her email address....you get the picture.

    FEMA's motto must be "Let's make it hard for people to get the support they need."

    Is FEMA living in a hole, in a cave, in the middle of a desert or what?
    • I'm sorry, but that's not just true anymore. It's what I do, every day - and where JS/Client side scripting was hellish in the late 90's there are plenty of examples of complex and mature javascript driven apps. Claiming that it's all too hard is the easy way out, there are standards, they are supported, widely amongst modern clients and it's just lazy to say, "screw it, we'll make it work in IE and nothing else".

      You should also never be mandating error checking of complex forms on the client side because you can't control the client-side. If it's complex enough that you can't reliably deploy it in JS, you should be writing that logic into the server side code.
      • by BusterB (10791) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:11AM (#13508489) Homepage
        Yes, I'm sure that they have their web developer out in a helicopter right now scanning for survivors. Give me a break. Someone is paid to maintain and support this website, and he or she is not doing his job well.
      • Crap. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SatanicPuppy (611928) <Satanicpuppy@@@gmail...com> on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:12AM (#13508498) Journal
        If your code is REMOTELY standards compliant then it'll pretty much work on every browser. You have to really lock yourself into Active X and .Net before you run into true incompatibility, which means you have to decide from the start to use a platform that you know is imprefectly supported.

        If this was a business, fine, who cares. But this is a disaster relief agency funded by taxpayer dollars, and they goddamn well better have a site that can be viewed by all citizens who need to view it.

        Just part and parcel with the rest of their collossal incompetence during the current distaster.

        And don't tell me they have better things to do; I haven't seen 'em do hardly anything yet. They could have used the week after the hurricane, when they were sitting around with their thumbs up their asses while everyone else was doing their job for them to at least make a webpage that could at least be viewed by the people who're still using older versions of IE!
      • by m4dm4n (888871) <madman@nofrance.info> on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:06AM (#13508435) Homepage
        I think in the end you're probably better off just using the telephone. They're more likely to understand technology thats been around for more than 100 years.

        "MS-Internet" is confusing to them.
        • by lxs (131946) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:30AM (#13508673)
          I think in the end you're probably better off just using the telephone

          --krrrr click--Thank you for calling FEMA, we regret to inform you that since you're using a Nokia mobile phone, we cannot connect you to an operator, please switch to a Motorola cellphone to make full use of our services. -bzzz- Have a nice day. --bleep--
    • by GreatBunzinni (642500) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:11AM (#13508478)
      That isn't the issue. The issue is that FEMA created a website for people to file claims and because if it's poor, incompetent and idiotic design (according to reports, the page works great with the IE user agent), people are barred from accessing that functionality. That's the problem. No one is advocating that the FEMA people stop all operations so that they can focus on fixing the site.

      When a public institution sets up a service with the tax payer's money for the tax payers to use and in the end there are clients which *UNNECESSARILY* can't access the service, that is just plain incompetence.
    • by Monoman (8745) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:21AM (#13508578) Homepage
      I don't think anyone has lost focus to the fact that there are bigger problems.

      Having said that, the whole situation is bringing other issues to light as well. Requiring IE (6 or later) is just stupid and puts up another hurdle for some of the people seeking assistance.

      This is the type of system that should be designed to conform to industry standards and the lowest common denominator. After a disaster we shouldn't be picky. Maybe all the "good" PCs got destroyed.
    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by digidave (259925) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:32AM (#13508686)
      1. A lot of people have Macs. A lot of people are stranded without easy access to multiple computer platforms.

      2. Aid workers are busy setting up computers for these people to use to contact relatives and fill out aid forms. They are not getting free Dell computers or free Windows licenses. They are setting up older computers that have been donated and may not run IE 6.

      3. FEMA's listed phone number will trigger an automated form delivery to your home address. In New Orleans. Not very helpful.
    • by moof1138 (215921) on Thursday September 08 2005, @08:53AM (#13508888)
      >There are other methods to file your claim

      AFAICT, many of those filing claims have to do it on line. The are running into problems with this setting up computer kiosks at all the shelters, since even if they are setting up a PC with Windows, it has to have the right version of IE, and many of the PCs are donated.

      They can't do it via mail - a ton of people lost their homes, and have no address. Even those who have an address in LA, AL, or MI are still in trouble if they were near the disaster area since the postal service has halted mail delivery.

      They can't do it via phone - those that have called have reported that FEMA will only mail them a claim form via the phone.

      Is there some other method I am overlooking? AFAICT if you lost your house, and you don't have access to the right version of a web browser this is a pretty major issue.