Biggest Mistakes in Web Design 1995-2015
Worst Web Sites
Worst Websites of 2010 (direct link)
Worst Websites of 2010 - User Interface / Navigation
Worst Websites of 2011: Contenders Jan. - Mar. (direct link)
Worst Business Websites of 2009, But You Can Learn Something From Them
Worst Business Websites of 2009
Worst Business Websites to Navigate in 2009
Worst Websites of 2009: Honorary Winners
Worst Over The Top Websites of 2009
Worst Non-Profit Websites of 2009
Ugliest / Worst Web Pages of the Decade
Gorgeous Websites From The
Late 90's To Inspire You — If You
Have No Taste
Web Design Checklists
Biggest Mistakes in Web Design 1995-2015
Daily Sucker - Current Examples of Bad Design
Subscribe to RSS feed
More Bad Web Design Techniques
Stupid Versions of WPTS Home Page
Worst Web Sites of 2009: April - June #1-10
Web design is an art. Great web design occurs when design and content are seamless and you don't notice its greatness. With great web design, it's easy to find the information you need. The content makes you want to return again and again and, most importantly, great design gives credibility to the company/organization.
Obviously, the sites that follow aren't examples of great web design.
1. We're Worth It
There’s a sad irony in the fact that what looks to be an organization to increase one’s self-esteem has an incredibly sucky web site. Actually, I don’t have the foggiest clue what the organization is really about.
To make matters worse. The page wants to play the song “We are the world,” but according to the Windows Media Player, the file is copy-protected and I don’t have the right to play it. Hmm.
If I wanted to be nice, I’d say this site is a classic example of Mistake #5 from Biggest Mistakes in Web Design 1995-2015 — "Have you ever seen another web site? Really? Doesn’t look like it."
They can chant “I’m worth it” until they’re blue in the face, but the design isn’t worth the paper it isn’t printed on.
Other comments #1: OK, here goes: I'm smart enough, I'm good enough, and gosh darn it - people like me...oh wait; wrong affirmation...I'm a failure...sob... So, you're worth it? What, exactly is "it"?
Honestly, I think "meta name="generator" content="Yahoo! SiteBuilder/2.5/1.6.0_03" explains quite a bit.
Other comments #2: "Over the top" would denote a site built by someone possessing the skills to overload a site with bells and whistles. The press release page isn't even readable. This is an "Under the Bottom" site.
2. Mr. Bottles
This page has a little too much fun with all of the Flash toys. It’d be a clever layout if a floating man didn’t start talking to me, a bunch of pictures started flipping frantically, and a little boat followed me as I scrolled.
I don’t want web page avatars talking to me.
Vincent Flanders’ comments: A talking, floating man is a good way to get your web site listed as one of the Worst of the Year. What really upsets me is the lack of understanding about paragraph structure. A paragraph is a logical unit…wait, it’s better to have an expert describe the structure of a paragraph. You don’t just run words together until you feel the urge to stop.
The home page is something like 2.1Mb and if you go to a subpage and then go back to the homepage, The Talking Bottle Guy repeats his spiel. Of course, we have contrast issues and the HTML has <FONT> tags and all the usual stuff you see here at WPTS.
Other comments #1: Thankfully, I likely will not have bad dreams about the talking bottle guy. It seems like garden-variety suckage, and is barely worth the time it takes to comment, except for the terrible contrast issue. It seems that someone was SOOOOOOOOO concerned with folks seeing the background image that he decided to sacrifice legibility.
Other comments #2: I think the site - which is quite a feat - violates every rule in the Good Design book. Great catch by the submitter.
Other comments #3: One man's garbage is another man's treasure and Vincent has struck it rich with this web site!
3. LingCars.com
I found another shockingly bad site that you might be interested in. Have a look at your leisure.
I think we have another sure-fire contender for the Worst Web Site of 2009. It’s 4.3Mb of flashing, blinking crap.
Vincent Flanders’ comments: I’m pretty sure the site makes almost all the possible text mistakes:
- Small text, which is difficult to read and comprehend.
- LARGE text, which is difficult to read and comprehend.
- LOTS OF WORDS IN ALL-CAPS.
- Scrolling, blinking, fading, or moving text.
- Underlined text. (Only links should be underlined.)
- Centered text (some headlines can be centered)
- Justified text.
- Sideways text.
- Uncommon fonts.
- <FONT> tag.
- Inappropriate font faces — like Comic Sans on a senior citizen site.
- Multiple text sizes on a page (video). There should be two sizes — one for headlines and one for text.
- Multiple text colors on a page.
I apologize if I’ve missed some or some of the above don’t apply. The site is too messy to examine thoroughly.
Other comments: This site really does suck (seems to try very hard to look like a newspaper page - big mistake) , but oddly enough, it isn't offensive. My biggest problem with it is that it lacks focus - your eye isn't allowed to rest on anything. Maybe that is the idea?
It isn't anywhere nearly as bad as that raving loony web site we saw a couple of weeks ago.
In any case, if you look carefully, there is actually some pretty interesting information, hidden like Easter eggs in snake-infested weeds.
4. OSFest
Submitter’s comments: Celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing… and about the 15th anniversary of when this was top-of-the-line Web page design. It’s even got a modern equivalent to one of those “Top 5%” badges. Gosh, that takes me back.
Vincent Flanders’ comments: Yes, it takes me back — to a place I don’t want to go. I was there once, thank you, and I don’t want to go back. The only thing that’s right is there’s plenty of color contrast. Unfortunately, the colors are ugly and you can read the text.
5. Edison Innovation Foundation
My daughter needed to get some information about Thomas Edison and the typewriter. I eventually found it, but had to print the PDF…the screen font is too small and dark for me to read.
See if you can find the article on “Thomas Edison’s Type Writer.” Let me know how it goes.
Vincent Flanders’ comments: I’ll tell you how it went. Right down the toilet. This site is one of the worst I’ve seen. The site is supposed to be about providing information, except they use every trick in the book to hide the information. The site was created with Flash. That’s the first mistake. Then they’re using circular navigation and then there’s the Mystery Meat Navigation in the center that’s about Edison’s patents. I’ll bet you $100 you can’t immediately go to Edison’s Galvanic Batteries patent.
I thought I’d be clever and use Google’s sitesearch and find “typewriter.” Nope. Even Google can’t find it. That’s the major reason Flash sucks. Searching Flash is damn near impossible (although Google is making important strides). Oh. We also have a FlashSplash page that wastes our time. Another reason Flash sucks is it’s hard to update your text. The copyright date on the site is 2006.
As I’ve said in Biggest Mistakes in Web Design 1995-2015, there are four reasons people visit a web site:
- They want/need information
- They want/need to make a purchase / donation.
- They want/need to be entertained.
- They want/need to be part of a community.
You won’t satisfy any of those wants/needs on today’s Daily Sucker.
There are four reason people visit the Edison Innovation Foundation:
- They want/need to be annoyed.
- They want/need to be frustrated.
- They want/need the feeling of Web Rage (it’s the Internet version of Road Rage).
- They want/need to waste precious minutes of their life.
Other comments #1: OMG! Why does poor Edison's head keep exploding! And why do I keep watching it explode? BIZARRE.
This is downright gross. MMN overkill. My vote for WORST site of the year!
Other comments #2: Vincent, You forgot to mention the upside down navigation!
6. ICCM
Submitter’s comments: I found this on DIGG. It was Dugg 7,852 times and there were over 1,000 comments. The headline was The Most Intense Web Site Intro Ever.
I think it certainly qualifies and I instantly thought of you for these four factors:
- Way over-the-top intro.
- Flashturbation.
- Religious web site.
- GlobeGuy would like it.
Vincent Flanders’ comments: Yes, it sucks like…well, I can’t write the analogy because I try to be somewhat audience friendly. Nevertheless, I WANT A SPLASH-FLASH PAGE LIKE THIS FOR WPTS. I’ve always prided myself on my web site having a somewhat tacky design. This FlashSplash is perfect. All some talented designer with a Flash decompiler has to do is replace ICCM with WPTS and change some of the wording around. Man, oh, man, I’d love to start off WPTS with a steaming, smelling pile of crap like that.
Other comments: That stupid, tacky, seizure-inducing Flash intro absolutely destroyed the site. That the web site is INTENSE (I feel like I am getting spiritually mugged) is correct, but the site is about half as tasteful as that for your average strip club here in Houston. I couldn't find where to turn off that phony John Walsh-sounding narration. Very bad.
Well, at least these folks are not preaching about the imminent appearance of the antichrist, the end of the Mayan calendar, the New World Order, or men in black helicopters. If their stated intent of creating a system of accountability for ministers is to be believed, then more power to them, despite their cheesy web site
I have never heard of this organization (and) I am mildly disturbed by being able to apply for ministerial credentials via the Internet, stated requirements notwithstanding.
7. AAA+ Utah Ski Rental Homes
Vincent Flanders’ comments: This site is a classic example of Mistake #5 from Biggest Mistakes in Web Design 1995-2015 — Have you ever seen another web site? Really? Doesn’t look like it." This site is blatantly beyond the pale — we’re not discussing the difference between a Monet painting and one by Manet — how can anyone NOT see the problems with this site? Look. My site sucks, but it’s infinitely better than today’s sucker.
Heck. Larry the Cable Guy would design a better looking site than this site (here’s a link for my foreign readers who may not catch the reference). Hell. My mother could design a better looking site and she died before web pages became popular.
Nuke it and start over.
Other comments #1: So much to love. I especially like the animated background, the image-only links (no text), the "BEST RATES IN THE VALLEY" item that makes the page extra wide, and this little gem at the bottom:
occasiONALLY WE HAVE A CANCELLED RESERVATION--
cALL FOR DETAILS ON DISCOUNTED RATES FOR LAST-MINUTE BOOKINGS!
i wonDER WHETHER THEIR BROCHURES LOOK THE SAME
Other comments #2: This web site illustrates the problem of people using WYSIWYG web editors. The editors themselves are just as complicated to learn as the HTML language itself. The people using the editors have no idea of what the underlying code looks like or is supposed to look like. Editing creates a mess.
This web site is split up into tables.
I think the "heading" at the top of the page is supposed to be centered. The author has used non-breaking spaces at the front of the line, and in between the words. It works if your browser is set to the right width.
The font SnowDrift is being used, at least by the author. I particularly like how the font CentSchbook TB is specified for displaying the graphic.
The concluding </html> tag has been deleted.
I think I got about a third of the way into the code. Someone else can continue this if they want. :)
8. Horicon Public Library
Submitter’s comments: I work for a nonprofit organization in the upper Midwest. I’ve been told to re-do our web site and, for some reason, my Director likes the look of the Horicon Public Library and is “strongly” suggesting I use this format. I’m a newbie and admit that I don’t know a ton about web design, but I think I know sucky when I see it and I'm sure you do too..
The tiny font for the address; the vertical text for navigation; and the not-so-intuitive navigation with all the assorted images. What was the designer thinking??? Tell me if I’m wrong, but I think this page sucks.
Vincent Flanders’ comments: Of course, you’re right. This site is awful. It’s a library. A library is supposed to make it easy for you to find the information you’re looking for. Sideways navigation? The Dewey Decimal System is not comprised of random numbers so why are they using Mystery Meat Navigation?
I think Seth Godin is a genius and his latest post is basically a cleaned-up summation of Web Pages That Suck:
“Do you want the people visiting this site to notice it?”
It’s a subtle but essential question.
For artists, musicians and web 2.0 companies, the answer is probably yes. Yes we want people to see the interface or remark on our skills or cleverness.
For everyone else, it’s no. The purpose of the site is to tell a story or to generate some sort of action. And if the user notices the site, not the story, you’ve lost.
Amazingly, this means that not only can’t the site be too cutting edge, clever or slick, it also can’t be too horrible, garish or amateurish. It’s sort of like the clothes you want the person giving a eulogy to wear. No Armani, no cutoff jeans.
Most people want their dentist to look like a dentist and not someone going to the opera. People of Horicon: Look like a library web site and not a photography web site.
9. Home of Heroes
Submitter’s comments: I’ve just started on as the web designer for my company. I’ve got a long list of improvements to make. I really appreciate your checklists, by the way.
For what it’s worth, the page I’m submitting is beyond sucky:
Vincent Flanders’ comments: Seth Godin has an article entitled, Two ways to build trust. To summarize for those KidsToday who don’t like to read, “If your site doesn’t look like a pro, the people will go.”
For the readers out there: As far as I can tell, this site isn’t a commercial site (outside of the ads and sponsors), but one of the problems with the site is that you can’t tell what kind of site it is except, perhaps, an extreme example of what used to be called an “amateur” web site.
The site is about “patriotism, the Medal of Honor and military history.” I think America’s heroes deserve better. I hereby recommend the site for court martial under Article 5 of the Biggest Mistakes in Web Design 1995-2015 — “Have you ever seen another web site? Really? Doesn’t look like it.“
10. Harvard University
Vincent Flanders’ comments: First, Harvard University didn’t understand the concepts of DNS and/or redirection:
- http://www.harvard.edu/ works.
- http://harvard.edu/ didn’t work until I mentioned it, then they fixed it. Oh. I have a screenshot.
Second, and worst of all, Harvard doesn't understand the definition of contrast.
I ran the home page through AccessColor and the report said:
Both color difference and color brightness do not meet the recommended standard for 10.87% of the total text.
Either color difference or color brightness does not meet the recommended standard for 23.37% of the total the text.
Here’s a screen shot of the full report. Mileage will vary because the home page changes frequently. This is a screen shot of the page I used to generate the report.
Oh. Harvard University uses Mystery Meat Navigation. I told you MMN was evil. Obviously, Harvard has turned to the dark site. You’ll find it under the main picture. At least they’re nice about it. You don’t have to click to see each news item. They’ve set it up so the four news items rotate.
