Okay... here is a list of stuff that i find
completely idiotic and just plain annoying
that i've found on the web. Click
the links for more information.
Basically the problem is (for you non-techies) that microsoft
holds somewhere upwards of about 60+% of the market of web
browsers (remember that big
law suit a while back?). Now that wouldn't be such a terrible thing if it
weren't for the fact that microsoft
doesn't like to follow the w3c standards
for css and other web technologies. I'll get to more on that in my next
complaint. The problem is that a whoooole bunch of web
developers (myself included when i'm lazy) use code that only looks and
functions properly in internet
explorer. Now with firefox
catching up in the browser race hopefully this won't be a big issue but you
can see the effects all over the web. Some examples are: transparent images,
lighter/darker images, misc. other color effects, inline frames and a bunch
of javascript stuff. Another side effect of lazy coding and not checking for
cross browser
compatibility is that handicap-friendly browsers can't read it. Imagine
trying to be blind and surfing the internet when none of the pages will get
interpretted by your browser!
One day the world will be a wonderful place where we all get along and everyone
will code using the w3c standards...
after all that's what they're for!
Wow. where to start. damn... okay... microsoft
is a big
evil corporation (god i hope the link is still up when you click it) and
they don't play by the rules.
This makes things terribly difficult for web
developers and ends up hurting the users in the long run. Now we are getting
a much better browser
out there: mozilla
firefox but they actually follow these rules
which is good but it means that a vast number of websites are not compatible
with firefox.
I'm not sure when it was that EVERYONE became so interested in what EVERYONE
else has to say... but i do know that it didn't use to be like this. No one
really cared what it was that johnny-web-surfer had for breakfast but now that
information is out there. all out there for you to read... hmm... why? i have
no idea. also now that everyone is using blogs to do stuff a lot of websites
are taking that approach to creating a site. WHY?! The idea is that a regular
site has all their info in blog entries instead of straight forward pages. I
can see the usefulness for this kind of thing on pages such as this one... but
why would you build your whole site like that?
Macromedia
flash is by far one of the most mis-used and completely wasteful tool out
there. Flash
is great to be used if you were say making a marketing demo, presentation, game,
animation or children's site, or for a commercial site that uses it SPARINGLY.
Another use, which most people don't even realize flash can do, is for building
certain types of web based applications. The problem is that everyone is "wow-ed"
by the bells and whistles animation provides. Hmm... if you're one of those
people... look over there --> something shiny! hehehe... Clients are always
looking for designers to make them flash-filled sites with animated buttons
and wild looking animations. This serves no purpose for the usefulness and most
often aesthetic appeal of the site. If you look at some of the biggest and most
successful websites out there, you'll see that hardly any of them use flash.
Most people put flash on their site just for the sake of having flash on it.
That is like saying that you want to have a $500,000 paint job on your car just
for the sake of having it. It is a complete waste of money, diskspace
and bandwidth.
The main problems are:
Flash movies are much bigger than images and take longer to download.
for the poor souls still using dial-up
this can be a real pain.
Flash movies are distracting from the content of the site.
Flash movies often take the place of good content. It doesn't matter how wonderful
it looks if there is no information on the site.
Sites built completely with flash (you've seen them and you designers know who
you are!) are NOT search-engine
friendly.
Flash movies require macromedia's
flash player plug-in to run.
Why would a lawyer, landscaper, car dealership, or restaurant need an animated
introduction to their website? If you want to read about why Flash
is such a bad idea... just read the complaint above, but
this complaint is completely different. Here I'm talking about animated intros.
Why oh why oh why do we have these? This serves no purpose but to delay the
access to the information the visitor is looking for. Delay = Bad or at least
that's what they always teach you in web-designer school... but then they teach
you to make those rediculous and often slow-loading animations for the sites.
Most people (i might be wrong about this... but most people i talk to) have
said that they don't ever even watch the intro. They simply push the "skip
intro" link... that is... if there IS a "skip intro" link. Not
putting one on there is just irresponsible and poor design. Be weary of any
designer that makes you sit through the intro. Also when the animations have
music that starts play right away.... this is just annoying and it can get you
into some serious trouble at work. -[looks around nervously]-
This is one of the things that drives me crazy more than nearly any other one
of these listed complaints. The problem: coders create navigation that doesn't
have a "down state". A "down state" is the image or color
of your link in the navigation when a user is on the coorisponding page. For
some reason a lot of programmers and even a large number of designers don't
take this into consideration. The code to make this happen would take any experienced
programmer all of 34.7 seconds to create. The effectiveness of the GUI
is increased infinitely by this simple modification. The down state is what
lets users see very quickly what page they are browsing. It is always good to
put it at the top of the page above the content or at least one other place
in the design.
Vincent Flanders sums it up best in his article titled "Mystery
Meat Navigation" on his website "Web
Pages That Suck". Thanks for that great article Vincent. I read that
when I was just starting out in this world wide web development thing back when
I thought that "Mystery
Meat Navigation" was really cool. (this is the kind of shit that art
school brain-washes you into thinking)
Okay.. I'm giving a disclaimer up front for this one: I'm sorry if i offend
you with this.... I personally have been doing graphic design for 11+ years,
web design for 7 years, and web development and programming for about 4. I know
that I'm still not able to work to my fullest potential but I try. I suppose
that we all have to start somewhere but when a person just starts doing design
they most likely aren't going to be too good at it. These days with the advent
of sites like myspace and
extremely cheap webspace,
everyone and their kid think they are "amatuer web designers". This
is fine if you are making a site for your family photos or just a site like
this to bitch about all sorts of stuff, but using an amatuer designer is no
substitution for an experienced web developer if you are getting a site for
your business. I offer websites
at the most competitive prices you can find anywhere. If your business can
afford chairs for several hundreds of dollars or a six hundred dollar ad in
a newspaper which gets thrown at by the end of the week, you can afford to get
a professional site. Remember,
Just because someone can make A website doesn't qualify them to make a GOOD
website!
The use of color* is
essential in design. Many developers are just programmers that make websites
meaning they have no idea how to use color. Its not their fault though, a programmer
is great at what they do because they can think the way a computer would think.
A computer as you know doesn't care what color things are. A person looking
at a website does.
One problem is that people use dark colors on dark backgrounds or light colors
on light backgrounds. Another is that they pick outrageous colors. Bright Pink,
Bright Orange, Bright Red, Bright Yellow, etc. are terrible colors to use...
especially on a white background. People also have a habit of picking colors
that don't "go" together at all. What I don't understand is that a
lot of these people wear matching clothes to work... is that because their wife
lays it out for them or just because they only have a bland selection to pick
from?
(*note that they don't follow their own advice on that link
blue on blue text? The info is good though.)
Going along with what I was just complaining about above, I thought I'd mention
this too. The default color for your background is white in internet explorer
and most web browsers. You can change that though through the "internet
options". My background is light blue. Why? So I don't do what I'm talking
about here.
A lot of designers just assume that you have a white background and therefore
will not bother setting a background color on the pages. This looks really awful
for anyone that doesn't have a white background especially if the site uses
graphics with white backgrounds. CSS
is here for a reason. Also we have been able to format the colors of almost
every element on a website for a very very long time. There is no excuse for
this.
Background images can make a site look really nice but at what cost to the user?
The thing most people don't consider is that every image on their site has to
be downloaded by the user. When I say "huge" i mean large in file
size. A lot of people do this for their myspace
pages and blog
pages. These pictures take forever to download and often distract from the text
or even makes the text illegible.
Animated cursors generally look awful and do not add anything to the website.
Animated backgrounds are TERRIBLE!!!!!!! this is a huge distraction. How can
you read text that is on a constantly changing background?
Poor grammar and spellling, which i'm sure this site is full of, looks very
unprofessional. Basically 90% of these mistakes can be found if the developer
just proofread the content before finalizing the site. There are tons of resources
to check spelling. Dictionary.com,
spell checkers, etc.
Okay so I know i've griped about flash and flash animations but what is the
deal with these damn flash "target shooting" ads? Some of my amusementisements
seen on this site are spoofs on this type of ad but this is a serious problem.
These things are all over the web and most aren't very good. They have sunk
to the level of "generic target" shooters. How many different variations
of the "target shoot" can we possibly have in order to win a free*
ipod.
*by free they really mean expensive. I know that doesn't sound right but that's
what makes america great. hahaha.
Sites that automatically start playing music when you go there are some of the
most annoying sites out there. This feature could be nice... except that when
people come to your site they often are listening to their own music or in an
environment where they don't want music to be playing. Unfortunately many sites
(including a lot of amatuer bloggers) put music that auto-plays on their site.
The worst use of this is when it is a low quality midi
file. Midi sounds
terrible... if you are going to put music on the site please DO NOT use midi.
This topic happens to be one which I have the opposite opinion as many experts.
The web-safe color palette
was a color palette of 216 colors that were deemed "safe" because
they looked the same on mac and windows platforms. First of all NO colors are
"safe". Everyone's monitors are calibrated
slightly differently therefore even the "safe" colors aren't really
"safe". This brings up the question as to why you would use them.
Well that's exactly why I argue that designers shouldn't even bother limiting
themselves to these 216 colors when most monitors display 16.7 million colors.
Another problem is that when you create an image with a gradient
in it, the colors almost always break this palette unless specified by the designer.
This rule is very out-dated and therefore shouldn't be considered valid.
This is a principle of design saying that it is best to design your websites
for a 640 pixel by 480 pixel resolution.
When someone came up with this, the standard monitor resolution
was only 640 x 480... then it went up to 800 x 600 (which some will say is the
current standard) but most everyone i know has their resolution
set at the very least 1024 x 768 pixels. I use a 21 inch monitor and have it
set at 1152 x 800. I design for 800 x 600. It is a good size to use since it
will be compatible with most monitors/browsers and you can see the entire design
in my favorite design application (when your monitor is set at 1152 x 800).
A lot of developers and designers, amatuer and professional alike, still use
HTML tags such
as the <FONT> tag. These tags are nearly completely deprecated
and are not used as a standard by serious designers and developers. In place
of using tags like <font> <b> <strong> etc. we use CSS. This
makes the design much smoother. Unfortunately editors such as front
page and many others are still using these tags.
A "Web
Designer" is not the same thing as a "Web
Developer" as opposed to this common misconception. A designer
is someone who does works on visual elements of websites. A lot of web
designers are just graphic
designers who learned html.
Web Development
is much more in-depth than that. A web
developer develops the code used to build the websites. They may be doing
advanced programming or simply making web applications. A web
developer may also be a designer
yet designers
are seldom considered developers.
This common misconception drives me up the wall because I have worked really
hard to move beyond being a meer "web designer" to be able to call
myself a "web developer".
This is a common problems for novice designers. When you design an image on
your computer you have access to every font available on your computer however
when you are surfing the internet you are also limited to the fonts available
on YOUR computer. A lot of times designers, especially amatuers and beginners,
will use fonts in their HTML
that aren't standard
fonts. They don't notice this because when they view the site it looks just
as they designed it. When someone on a different computer views it they will
not see the font. I recently went to a local pizza shop's website to see if
it was any good. I could not read 90% of the text on several of their pages
because i don't have some font called something like "fantasmaliatia".
The simple solution to making sure that everyone will be able to view the page
is to use standard fonts or to at least use what is called a "font
family". A "Font
Family" is a list of several different fonts that may be used to display
the text. I.e. "font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" In that
example the user could have only one of the fonts listed and the text would
still show up.
Okay... so look at the left and right sides of this white section of the page.
You'll notice that the lines are dashed/dotted. This is so stupid. Why does
everyone use this style? Why does everyone think its so cool? hmmm... I will
never understand but I think I've seen about enough little dashed/dotted lines
to make me sick.