Why do banking websites break the web and are generally crappy?

I assume a bank would say a great banking application is good enough to prevent users from leaving for other banks, i haven't encountered a US bank site that bad (i do sometimes have to disable Adblocker to use bank sites).

I assume a bank would say a great banking application deters the user from calling the bank to talk to someone (bank doesn't want to pay money to staff someone to talk on the phone).

I think banks had to race each other to get online 15 years ago to serve millions of users which explains why a lot of their products feel outdated. If its not broken don't fix it mentality. I assume reeducating users on a new bank site design could force banks to forgo interest/penality payments and things like that.

Considering banks are involved, people are constantly trying to break in, so security is definitely priority over usability.

In the US at least, mobile apps are already used more than desktop apps, so i assume investment will continue to pour more into mobile apps while desktop users will be stuck with more outdated technologies.

I think it's a combination of several factors. One is that few people join or leave a bank because of their website. It's usually encountered already after you've deposited your money and it's going to be very inconvenient to leave them.

Another factor is that they typically have a big pile of money budgeted to develop it, which means hiring large teams, which means finding work for many people, which means building a very large complicated website to have something to show for it in the end.

This is where design-by-committee comes into play, which is a third factor, and where all those asinine rules come to play. And don't forget, they are already under the authority of all the regulatory committees, with a committee deciding exactly how to follow another committee's rules.

I have some visibility to a small bank (quite a few branches over a large area but not a mega bank)... and basically they hire a company to manage their individual online banking. They're not provided a lot of options outside of branding and such. Having said that they're secure and that is what matters to them the most.

I have mixed feelings about your description of them though. I've found most of my US online banking to be "adequate". I don't feel like the what you describe is really the worst of what we see as far as "break the web" goes.

Your bank just sucks, not all of them are like this: n26 for example got a good application and is now in the US and is big in Europe.

Nubank as well(Latin america).

There are other competitors in that space.

On my home country(I now live in Europe ;-) ), Brazil, there are so many banks that have amazing apps, customer service and are completely free, with an overall modern banking system, that I wonder if North America didn't really manage to get in the XXI century :-).

It's also kind of cheap to build the software to run a digital bank, possibly much more cheaper than the banking license itself.

I worked at large bank who decided to give up solid, predictable and reliable html/aspx pages in favor of silly one-pager framework "to improve user experience".

This of course to be accomplished by an army of hit-n-run offshore consultants.

Issues predictably ensued multiplied by losses from users who couldn't tolerate this nonsense and switched their trading and banking activities in favor of competitors.

I raised this question few times but what scolded by mid-management in fear of being put on a spot for bad business decision.

Yet it still keeps happening.

If you have to divide your budget between UX and security, a bank focuses on security. Your favorite startup focuses on UX.

It's business application. Not a entertainment site