Web Pages That Suck -- Examples of Bad Web Design

These are the Daily Suckers -- Examples of Bad Web Design -- from WebPagesThatSuck.com. I couldn't predict every new sucky design technique that would come along when I wrote the book because there's always a new way to do something bad. This page will keep you up-to-date. Live examples.

My definition of "daily" is "whenever I'm in the mood."


The Daily Sucker for Monday, September 15, 2003

America's Web Site quotes from the e-mail: "I guess I expected more from art teachers!"

It's one of the most messed-up home pages I've seen in a long time. We've got centered text, no real navigation (it's sort of there, but...), a focal point of the logo, cheap graphics, links that go down the page, and a repeating background that screws up the text on browser windows larger than 1024 x 768.

New York State Art Teachers Association

comment []

trackback []


Bad names to use for directories or "Check your site with ad-blocking software."

I've typed in all the file/directory/domain names that Norton Internet Security blocks and, thanks to someone who sent me a typed list of names from Ad-Muncher, I've included these names also.

If you don't understand what this means, read the article linked below.

Don't use these names

comment []

trackback []


OK, Microsoft, fix your CSS support while you're at it.

As we all know, Microsoft said it would stop development of all standalone versions of Internet Explorer, with the possible exception of security and performance updates. Unfortunately, this means there was no hope for fixing all the CSS bugs in IE 6.

For those of you who haven't been paying attention, since Microsoft lost its lawsuit with Eolas, Microsoft is going to have to change the way Internet Explorer handles plug-ins. You know, little programs like Macromedia Flash, Adobe Acrobat, et al. Internet Explorer will no longer be allowed to automatically load these plug-ins from web pages.

If you read the article in the above link, you'll find out there is no easy solution and that web sites who use plug-ins are basically screwed. It's going to be ugly to fix all the sites out there and it's going to be expensive.

No matter what approach Microsoft has to take regarding plug-ins, they have to "fix" their current browser. While they're at it, Microsoft should fix their CSS support. It would make the process of designing web sites so much easier and make it more palatable for people to upgrade their browsers.

Really Evil Thought of the Day:

Microsoft may view this lawsuit as their golden opportunity to cripple/kill Flash. Flash is a serious competitor to Microsoft and if I were in charge of IE, I'd scream and protest about the evils of the lawsuit and how it's going to ruin the Internet and then update the browser so you had to use the ugly dialog box approach -- see the article above. After everyone complains about how hard it is to use web sites with Flash [and other plug-ins], companies would stop using Flash and Acrobat on their sites.

Microsoft wins because they get to yank their support of Flash and other plug-ins and cripple/kill their competitors without looking like the bad guy. If Microsoft just yanked support on their own, there would be protests like you can't imagine, calls for a boycott, and the Bush Administration would -- believe it or not -- have the Justice Department investigate.

Personally, I hope Microsoft finds a solution that makes Flash just as easy to use as it is today, but as I always say, "I can resist everything but temptation."

comment []

trackback []

Sunday, September 14, 2003

The Daily Sucker Backgrounder

The Daily Sucker contains material that should be considered updates to the book, "Web Pages That Suck." and Son of Web Pages That Suck. I can't see the future -- if I could, I'd be picking lottery numbers and stocks. The Daily Sucker features new sucky design techniques not in existence when the book was written. Since Web designers are stubborn, I also include old sucky techniques featured in the book. Maybe if they see a bad technique featured enough they'll stop using it.

The suckers are based on user input. You see a site that you think sucks and then e-mail the URL to me. No personal pages (personal pages are supposed to reflect the individual's personality, artistic freedom, and lack of taste -- a commercial site is about making money) or Web site designers (it would look like a conflict of interest). If I think there's some merit to your selection, I post it along with some commentary -- and quality commentary helps determine whether I use the suggestion. If you know of a site that qualifies, let me know.

The sucky example will usually be available for only 24 hours (or thereabouts -- weekends and egregious examples are exceptions) -- never to be seen again. Well, probably. Somebody could always suggest them again -- and they do.

E-mail Vincent