No subject

really dollars and cents. While we all know that the effort involved in 
developing a web application for multiple browsers is relatively minor, 
remember that the cost of this for a bank like NAB is amplified 100x. 

Where do they draw the line? What is a 'major' browser and what is a 'minor' 
browser? I know that you are simply asking them to remove the warning, but this 
has many implications from a QA point of view. They would then have to add 
Mozilla and all its various versions in use to their list, and this involves a 
lot of regression testing etc.

What this idiot should have said is '... but we will not be including it in the 
browser detection script because it is a browser used by a minority, and the 
cost for us outweighs the benefit for us'. As always, you can vote with your 
feet, but you cant argue with simple cost/benefit analysis. I know all banks 
are evil, but its a bit rich to claim that the NAB is 'against open source', 
especially when theyve just spent piles of cash evaluating linux as an 
alternative on the backend. 

Ive never really gotten wound up by this kind of thing I guess. I use PNCS, and 
their online banking partially breaks with mozilla, so I just use IE. I wouldnt 
bother to change banks because of it. 

meh

disclaimer: I work for an arm of MLC, which is itself an arm of NAB. I still 
think they are bastards in many ways, but I cant agree with the logic of 
getting wound up about this.