| > [...] to offer a polished, differentiated UX lacking in traditional banks’ platforms. It's not even always legacy systems, but rather, not hiring and empowering the right ICs and management. Latest anecdata is from 2 days ago. I was trying to use a fairly new banking service feature of a major bank's Web site, and it had a superficially modern-looking UI, but I quickly found a few outright bugs in it. In a banking transaction... * A box with the summary breakout of subtotal, transaction fee, and total... had a very wrong total, based on the other numbers right there. * At some point during a use case, the currency indicator on the total changed to that of the wrong country, though the total was of course in USD (for which the number was correct). * In line items, some of the numbers previously entered would change. I can only guess that this might've been part of a flawed implementation, to respond to frequent exchange rate updates every few minutes, but if so, they did it poorly. (The changing number then caused some rounding down of what would've been the stable number in the item, so both numbers changed, and caused the transaction value of the stable numbers to fall below a transaction threshold. Even guessing at the cause, several times I had to go fix these numbers, before I decided that, even if I could get them to accept it with the correct numbers from the UI, I didn't trust this implementation to submit and process the transaction correctly.) If those defects were going to be coded at all, then they should've at least been caught in testing, not pushed into production for banking. Something critical like banks should really be paying for small teams of some of the best software ICs and management. Which (since the business is banking, not saving baby seals, nor building quantum AI spaceships) probably means paying like FAANGs do. |