Wpadka Citibanku przy sumce 900 000 000$ featuring interfejs użytkownika od Oracla
Citibank just got a $500 million lesson in the importance of UI design
...
The actual work of entering this transaction into Flexcube fell to a subcontractor in India. He was presented with a Flexcube screen that looked like this:
The subcontractor thought that checking the "principal" checkbox and entering the number of a Citibank wash account would ensure that the principal payment would stay at Citibank. He was wrong. To prevent payment of the principal, the subcontractor actually needed to set the "front" and "fund" fields to the wash account as well as "principal." The subcontractor didn't do that.
Citibank's procedures require that three people sign off on a transaction of this size. In this case, that was the subcontractor, a colleague of his in India, and a senior Citibank official in Delaware. All three believed that setting the "principal" field to an internal wash account number would prevent payment of the principal. As he approved the transaction, the Delaware supervisor wrote: "looks good, please proceed. Principal is going to wash."
...
"Furman also argued that it was reasonable for the creditors to assume that a bank as sophisticated as Citibank wouldn't send out such a large amount of money by accident."
Piękne... ale wiecie, deadline itd :D to na UI i na testy czasu nie ma... :D
Może komuś się przyda takie Webinarium - #UI, #html5, #js
http://www.telerik.com/campaigns/kendo-ui-build-free
W bankach to chyba norma :P Jak jeszcze w jednym pracowałem to kilka razy miałem wątpliwą przyjemność automatyzować podobne apki. Źle to wspominam :D Ogólnie rzecz biorąc cudem było jak chciała się włączyć