Web Pages That Suck - learn good web design by looking at bad web design

Submitter’s comments: Have a look at this site. What do you think of it? It’s great.

Vincent Flanders’ comments: I think the site has some problems. First, there are error messages that quickly flash on the screen and disappear. The messages are:

Warning: ini_set() has been disabled for security reasons in /home/airportf/public_html/libraries/joomla/session/session.php on line 102

Warning: ini_set() has been disabled for security reasons in /home/airportf/public_html/libraries/joomla/session/session.php on line 105

Warning: ini_set() has been disabled for security reasons in /home/airportf/public_html/libraries/joomla/session/session.php on line 682

Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cookie – headers already sent by (output started at /home/airportf/public_html/libraries/joomla/session/session.php:102) in /home/airportf/public_html/libraries/joomla/session/session.php on line 423

Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cache limiter – headers already sent (output started at /home/airportf/public_html/libraries/joomla/session/session.php:102) in /home/airportf/public_html/libraries/joomla/session/session.php on line 423

Warning: Cannot modify header information – headers already sent by (output started at /home/airportf/public_html/libraries/joomla/session/session.php:102) in /home/airportf/public_html/libraries/joomla/session/session.php on line 426

Next we have raw Google Analytics code showing through the page just below the site title. You can see it in the screen capture above.

Someone was performing Quantity Assurance instead of Quality Assurance.

Airportfleet.co.uk

Submitter’s comments: It’s like a time machine.

Vincent Flanders’ comments: Just what the world needs. A time machine that takes us back to a time when suckier web pages ruled the Internet.

You start off at the root site and if you don’t click the globe (another freakin’ globe), you’re taken to The Hempstore and if you dawdle too long, you’re taken to a page about cannabis candy. They say it’s legal, but I don’t think I’m going to try my luck—I don’t have any.

At the Hempstore there are three choices, the HempHotel, the HempFarm, and the HempStore. At least the pages look pretty much the same.

It’s another Over-the-top Website and that’s all you really need to know. One more thing. The copyright dates are 1993-2005. Interesting because the web didn’t really take off until the end of 1994.

(Aren’t you proud of me? I went until the end without one drug reference.)

HempFarm

Submitter’s comments: Here’s a music repository with a monumentally counter intuitive UI. Watch and be amazed. At least it doesn’t use Flash

Vincent Flanders’ comments: Another WTF website. Just because you’re a site about retro game music or something, doesn’t mean you have to keep the motif in your design. Sites with the word “global” in them don’t (usually) use a globe on their site.

Chiptunes

Submitter’s comments: I would love to see Sony castigated on your site. If you look at the EX Series Earbuds page, you’ll see they’re using gray on white text.

Vincent Flanders’ comments: I don’t think I’ll castigate them, I’ll just severely criticize them or inflict severe punishment on them <grin>.

WTF is going on? It’s bad enough sites are using #666 (Satan’s CSS) for their text, but Sony is using #999 — which is 50% more of Satan’s CSS. If they don’t want us to read something, don’t use words. In Sony’s case, they’re hiding marketing BS, which is redundant.

They use #666 in their description of the product — ” Destined to become your favorite accessory…” Let me tell you something from many years of experience. If a pair of earphones is your favorite accessory, you lead a very, very sad life.

Heck, by comparison, their footer is easy to read. Normally, that’s where you can legitimately use #666 or 999.

Sony

I’ve been trying to figure out who is influencing architects to make their sites unreadable. I think I might have the answer. Architect Magazine and World Architecture News both use light gray text. Then again, it’s a chicken/egg situation. Which came first? The architects’ design or the magazines’? See my posts on architectural firms Kieran-Timberlake and Perkins-Will.

Vincent Flanders’ comments: This is an architect quoted in the article about Steve Jobs that I mentioned in the previous Daily Sucker. The site uses Mystery Meat Navigation that fades in and out. Think about it. How stupid is this? Do you want your road signs to fade in and out? If you don’t want to waste your time visiting the site, here’s a screenshot.

Kieran-Timberlake

Vincent Flanders’ comments: I was reading an article about the Apple Store’s design and ran across links to…guess what?…architects. Since architects produce wild websites or beautiful websites that suck, I had to go and visit some of their sites.

What’s the biggest mistake these high-end architects make? Well, they seem to love Satan’s CSS, which is the use of the color “gray” or #666 for text (666 is allegedly the sign of the beast). Why is this wrong? Because it’s difficult to freaking read. The W3C says it’s difficult to read and if architects don’t follow standards, their buildings fall down. Now, their websites fall down. I realize that pictures are what it’s all about for architects, but if you don’t want me to read the text, don’t write any text.

If you’re interested in having a solid foundation, AccessColor describes the intricacies of contrast really well, as does Wikipedia. A new website has taken up my cause about contrast and it’s called, logically enough, Contrast Rebellion. Since artists and architects think graphically, maybe if they look at Contrast Rebellion they’ll understand the importance of contrast and change their ways.

Perkins-Will

It wouldn’t take me very long to go through three-months’ worth of Daily Suckers, pick out the 10-3o worst, write a short paragraph and put a link to each site. In fact, that’s what some KidsToday want. They write and tell me, “You have too many words. Nobody reads.” Translation: “I don’t read.”

Because people don’t read they don’t understand why their site is listed on WPTS. You don’t believe me? The owner of a site that’s on one of the 2011 lists emailed me saying he worked on his site and wanted to know if it still sucked When I went back to look, the only thing that looked different to me was that the background music was removed. He didn’t read what I said and didn’t read the comments.

I’m hoping that what he wants—what everyone wants—is detailed lists of exactly what’s wrong. That’s why I’ve added a section called, “Does your website make any of the mistakes made by XYZ?” When you click, I’ve used my Web Design Checklist 1: 165 Mortal Sins and Web Design Checklist 2: 83 Potential Mortal Sins to try and identify exactly which mistakes they’ve made.

The 20 Worst Websites of 2011: Second Quarter Contenders and How These Sites Relate to Your Website

I spent a lot of time working on the Second Quarter Contenders so it would be in its final format. I’m three months behind on the Third Quarter and I have 33 contenders for worst site instead of “only” 20 in Q2. So instead of waiting to produce perfection, I’m breaking the process down into five steps—I call them “Run-Throughs”—and giving material to you as I create it.

What I’m releasing today is Run-Through #1. When I complete a section, I’ll check it off and you’ll know there’s something new to read. Here are the five:

1. Examine Daily Suckers and pick out the worst of the worst.
2. Edit and simplify the text, add screenshots and add commentary from my brilliant readers.
3. Put sites in order of suckiness. Eliminate the “not-so-sucky.”
4. Add “How These Sites Relate to Your Website” commentary, if necessary.
5. Final format.

It’s ugly, but there’s still value in the material.

The Worst Websites of 2011: Third Quarter Contenders (First Run-Through) and How These Sites Relate to Your Website

Submitter’s comments: Probably a ghastly waste of bandwidth; certainly a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. I found this site by accident when I clicked in some blank space at the left of a TechRepublic article to put focus on that window again. TechRepublic’s “hidden” ad link probably qualifies as its own hurl inducing experience.

Vincent Flanders’ comments: What you don’t see on the above screenshot is the dizzying TV footage that is, at the very least, distracting. I’m not sure who is the target audience. The ad appears on a well-respected tech site (I certainly respect it). Perhaps the ad appears on an education website and a health care website, etc.

If you click one of the categories and go to one of the boxes, you’ll see that Dell uses light blue for their links. Dell also uses the same color on text in the box. Not a good idea.

As the submitter stated, he clicked the blue area to the left of the article to get focus on the window. Surprise! He didn’t know—and why would he—that this area is a link. I’m not fond of this technique. I can’t imagine many potential customers are snared this way. Maybe this is an old technique, but I’ve never seen it before. I hope I don’t see it again.

You need to see the ad in action so I made a video. I apologize for the audio. I think I set the quality too high.

Dell
Video of the sneaky ad technique

Submitter’s comments: Go back to the mid-1990s! My eyes kept focusing on the click here, but I really couldn’t tell why I should click there. Lots of color to distract you. Would I even consider buying their software? No way!

Vincent Flanders’ comments: Some visitors don’t believe that this type of website still exists—I’m afraid they do. Others believe that the owners know their sites are bad—No they don’t. I featured one website for “obvious reasons.” A while later, the owner wrote back and said he had revised the site and asked if it still sucked. I went to the site expecting something new and wonderful and I couldn’t see anything different except he removed a sound file that automatically played when the page loaded.

I suspect the owner of this site doesn’t know it sucks. It does. Go through Web Design Checklist 1—156 Mortal Sins That Will Send Your Site to Web Design Hell and Web Design Checklist 2 – 83 Potential Mortal Sins and see how many mistakes are made.

As an addendum. This (WPTS) site sucks. I’ve never been pleased with it, but that’s OK because this is WebPagesThatSUCK. Even though it sucks, it’s infinitely better than today’s sucker—or almost any sucker on here (except for some sites with just contrast issues). If his site sucked as much as mine, this would be a much, much nicer looking web.

Cemetery Software

Submitter’s comments: I’m not sure what to make of this beast. It’s so ugly I sort of want to
keep looking at it because sooner or later, maybe I’ll “get it.” At the
present moment, I don’t.

Vincent Flanders’ comments: I don’t know if it’s ugly. It seems misguided. My problems start at the very beginning—the company name and tagline. Atomic Data: Simple, Safe, Smart. When I read those words I think, “Nuclear, Complex, Explosive, Dangerous, Japan, Boom.” Nobody outside the nuclear industry thinks “Simple, Safe, Smart” when they think “at0mic.”

Instead of getting the feeling I’m looking at a data center and a cloud, I feel I’m looking at a nuclear reactor. That’s not a good impression. The yellow motif consciously makes me think “emergency.” Yellow is the wrong color for this site. Blue would work much better. Almost any color except yellow and red.

The home page Lightshow conveyor belt is very annoying. I should know. I’ve used them here and annoyed lots of people. Almost as many as my slow-sliding elevator menus <grin>. When I go to the TV page, I don’t see anything relating to video. The conveyor belt goes too fast and it’s too hard to stop where you want to stop.

On the other hand, I like the fact the PDFs are identified.

Atomic Data

Submitter’s comments: Here’s my ALL-TIME favorite, awesome, architect website.

Vincent Flanders’ comments: I seem to have a fetish for architects’ websites. My initial fascination was over how outlandish and mysterious they were because they seemed to adore Mystery Meat Navigation. I even have a page devoted to architects that I’m revising because so many of the sites I featured have changed. I hope I provided some inspiration and impetus to get them to change.

Today, we have an architectural website anomaly. Instead of an architect’s website that’s “out there” like the old Zaha-Hadid site, we have an architect who is inspired by 1997 website design.

Yes, it’s using some sort of Microsoft-generated theme but it’s doing something I’ve never seen done on a website. I’ve seen websites that tell you that your monitor needs to have a specific resolution, but I’ve never seen one that tells you your monitor’s resolution and then tell you to change it. Cleverly arrogant.

Thank God I can’t tell you the last time I saw a Java-animated logo that ripples when you move your mouse over it. Other elements that are wrong include the marquee, animated GIFs, cheesy navigation buttons and—oh, my God!—I haven’t seen the following two mistakes from Web Design Checklist 1: 156 Mortal Sins That Will Send Your Site to Web Design Hell for a long, long time

Our site has “Download latest browser” text or buttons.

Our site prominently displays what hardware and software was used to create the site.

Tamborra Design Group

Submitter’s comments: I would like to submit the following website for consideration: Sixties Press. When I went to their website I gave an involuntary shudder. The header is barely readable: it looks like something created in Microsoft Paint with every imaginable effect added on. The picture of the editor has this weird effect where it looks like ripples in a pond. There has to be at least 20 different colors on the page with no rhyme or reason. I hope you will agree, this web page really sucks.

Vincent Flanders’ comments: I suspect that everyone except the site owner agrees with you. I suggest the owner read (and as a publisher he has no excuse not to read) about Mistake #6 from Biggest Mistakes in Web Design 1995-2015 — “Have you ever seen another web site? Really? Doesn’t look like it.“ Actually, he should read the whole article along with my series of checklists on bad web design:

Checklist 1 – Fatal Mistakes
Checklist 2 – Big Mistakes
My Site Sucks. What Do I Do Now?

Actually, the home page reminds me of some things I saw back in my college dorm in the 1960′s. Fortunately, the color combinations were much better.

Sixties Press

Submitter’s comments: I came across this, the website of famous British actress Lesley Joseph, and I have to say I think it’s the worst, most pointless website I’ve ever seen.

Vincent Flanders’ comments: It’s really pretty amazing. A small text logo—on the right side, but directly across from a graphic that you think would contain a real logo. I assume the large empty space at the top is for a banner ad, but right now it’s large and empty. It’s also difficult to read her last name because it conflicts with the background.

My favorite part is her comments on the mid-right side:

Do not be fooled, this is the real Lesley Joseph official website. I am an English actress and am starring in The Vagina Monologues!

I wonder if the fake Lesley Joseph has a better-looking unofficial website.

Leslie Joseph

Submitter’s comments: This site is based on the work and experience of Mike Rowe and his Dirty Jobs program. Great idea to help America work for America, but the designers of the site are clearly stuck in 1995 and are fans of MS Bob.

This site’s “navigation” is so counter-intuitive that I couldn’t spend more than 10 seconds mousing over crap objects to figure out what did what.

Vincent Flanders’ comments: Time Magazine called Microsoft Bob one of the 50 Worst Inventions of All Time. Well, at least one person found success with Microsoft Bob.

Yeah, what’s with this layout? I’m thinking it’s more 1997 than 1995. I’ve featured a few of these Bobs in the past: Billy Connolly, Brill Publications and the old BVS Performance Center for Banks come to mind—probably because they burned a hole in my brain. No, wait. That was the subdural hematoma. If my memory serves me well—and it doesn’t always—this type of format seems to be popular with TV, movies and other artistic endeavors. It needs to stop being popular.

Mike Rowe Works

Submitter’s comments: A link on their home page points to a parked domain, so I filled out a contact form to let them know. Their form is a nightmare, by the way–there’s no line wrapping or right margins. Then I click send…

The form becomes a photo of a deer in a gun’s crosshairs! This is next to a list of aaca’s animal cruelty officers!

Vincent Flanders’ comments: Actually, the form has problems that are much worse. I didn’t enter anything into the form. I just hit the SUBMIT button and it sent the form off. Whether they receive it or not is something I don’t know.

I can’t get to the Alabama Humane Federation. I get a message saying the referrer is blocked. Why this is happening I can’t say. At least one link is to an unmarked PDF and there are a couple of links marked with two most frightening words that I know—Click Here. It’s not enough to just say “Click here” (NSFW, perhaps)

I couldn’t find the link to the parked domain.

Alabama Animal Control Association (form)

Submitter’s comments: Despite having seen a lot of bad websites being an active reader of your website, I was shocked when I took a look at this website.

It is definitely a website with potential: Good domain name (-> SEO) and (to translate the German term “Freizeitpark Herne” to “amusement park herne”) well structured.

The flaws primarily concentrate on the site’s content, which is a perfect example for nearly all terms of bad web design you defined since 1996.
Moreover, redirects are not well set and there is duplicate content on familienparkherne.de.
To put it short: It sucks, because it is 100% Flash, 100% over-the-top, too saturated and “filled” (even if a child developed this site), the navigation is spread all over the site (MMN?), epileptics are endangered (check out the sub-sites) and despite being filled with a lot of content, it is hard to find any information about the park itself (You don’t even have to speak germ an to figure that out).

Vincent Flanders’ comments: It’s a very strange-looking site. Since I’m y0ur average American guy, I only speak English so I’m not sure what the site is about. In order to get a pass, it would have to be a website for kids. Young kids. Very young kids. Why are you letting your toddlers surf the Internet?

I clicked about half of the links and didn’t find any seizure material, so why press my luck?

freizeitpark

Submitter’s comments: Long first page with a jumble of sections and paragraphs meaning God-knows-what? No discernible navigation scheme? No discern able layout? Various fonts and colors used at whim? Many content pages different from each other? Lack of focus? Animations? Yes to all that and more! One glance and an attempt to figure it out makes me want to point to Gang Stalking World and say “See? Not sharing the consensus reality is no reason to avoid at least trying to make your web site less annoying.”

Vincent Flanders’ comments: In a battle between Sosbee and the FBI, I’m putting my money on the FBI. Some people call this type of website a loon website. I would classify it as an Over-the-Top Website.

The definition of an “Over the Top” industry is just like the definition of pornography — you know it when you see it. Over the Top sites generally deal with philosophy, religion, politics, end times, etc., but they’re generally not mainstream.

Actually, the scarier website is Gang Stalking World because it doesn’t look like a loon website—assuming it is one. A superficial look-see really can’t tell you much other than the site looks credible.

My favorite part of the home page is the graphic that says, “The fbi and cia regularly hack this site, deleting material or intentionally misspelling and changing words…” Damn. I wish I’d thought of that excuse when I screw up.

Even if Sosbee is 100% correct, no one is going to believe him because his site looks like it was created by someone with ADHD. And I know a thing or two about that.

Geral W. Sosbee vs FBI

Submitter’s comments: A complete disaster in every sense of the word. What do you do when a potential client sends this to you as a reference? Puff puff pass until it looks good? (Didn’t work by the way.) Swallow my pride to put food on the table? Hell no! Cost me less to pass up the job than to be in therapy for the next 3 years. I may still have nightmares of floating objects whirling by my face.

Vincent Flanders’ comments: Only the fact that it’s a site for a clothing line keeps me from pulling out whatever hair my grandson hasn’t already pulled out of my head (it’s cute when a 5-month old is doing the pulling). It’s cute when fashion boys and girls create these type of “sites” (events? whatever). It’s not cute if anyone out there has a real business—one that knows the difference between appearance and reality—and pulls this crap.

Interesting choice of a name for a business. I thought I was going to be sent to some religious cult.

Obedient Sons & Daughters

Here’s Your One-Stop Guide For Everything You Need To Know To Make It In Tech

CSS3 Rainbow Dividers

The author commented that he was disappointed I didn’t catch that the whole page was wrapped in a <sarcasm> tag. I apologize. It was that kind of day. On the other hand, a lot of other people are going to be fooled. After all, when sites that use Mystery Meat Navigation are lauded, why not rainbow dividers. Nah. You’re right. I should have seen it coming.

It’s been removed from Daily Sucker status and placed in Not a Daily Sucker.