Mark asks:

> >    5) privacy compromising, and NEEDLESS, use of "cookies"
>
> Why should I be bothered if HP wants to use cookies to track my movements
> through the support web site?

They can already do that...they control their web server, so they can
log anything they want to log.

> If it enables HP to serve me better, I'm 100% in favor of them knowing as
> much about my use of their support tools as possible.

Ah, but it doesn't.  There's no indication it provides any more information
than the original "synthetic URL" method provided.

Further, it disenfranchises a small number of users (e.g., lynx browser).

Finally, it compromises your privacy.  As I understand it, there's nothing
to prevent my web server from asking your browser to give me a cookie
that HP setup.  (I could be wrong, but I'm in good company, including
Jon Udel (an editor at Byte, see page 118 of Byte, March 1997).)

It does, however, make ISPs who charge by the packet happier!

Lastly (which comes after finally, I guess :), how is that supposed
to help with people who use multiple browsers on on machine (I use 3:
IE 3, Netscape 4, Netscape 3 ... I usually don't run Mosaic, but it's
there too), or multiple machines (e.g., desk, home, and ??).  The
browser-based memory is completely useless in such an environment.

> >    8) Missing functionality  (aka, Enhancements)
> >       This would, of course, mean that the update process would
> >       optionally trigger a short automatic email to me.
>
> I lust after this one.
>
> >       A "CLOSED" call should be displayed with a link (URL)
> >       to the associated SR (if appropriate).  Thus, if my call
>
> I lust for this one too.

Thanks!  It's nice to know I'm not alone.

--
Stan Sieler                                          [log in to unmask]
                                     http://www.allegro.com/sieler.html