Worst Websites of the Year
Daily Dose of Bad Design (Daily Sucker)
Current Examples of Bad Web Design Presented Daily (direct link)
Bad Web Design
Overview (direct link)
Current Examples of Bad Web Design Presented Daily (direct link)
Overview (direct link)
These sites run the gamut from just a few tragic mistakes to the worst kind of Over-The-Top websites you see featured in The Daily Sucker.
My personal favorites are the WTF?—What The Heck?—sites that make you shake your head and ask the question, "Did anybody look at this site before it went live?" The answer to that question is usually, "Doesn't look like it."
You need to go through the whole list because today's rankings aren't permanent. For example, I'm very fond of #17—Jes MaHarry—and I'm sure it will rank higher when the final list comes out later this year.
April 24th, 2013 1:01 am by Vincent Flanders
Other comments #1: How totally screwed up can a site get?
Submitter's comments: I found this true gem, which works fine when Flash is blocked Unfortunately you don't get a choice.:
The website otherwise not only seems to be completely Flash-based, but also features a huge intro video (without any content), Mystery Meat Navigation (animated with flying items, no less) and, according to my tests, it does not work in Firefox, does not work in Opera and does not work in Safari. In these browsers you only get an image preloader, and then a not-changing more-or-less empty Flash site.
The only browser to show the whole animation site on my computer without errors was Google Chrome, but I suppose IE should work.
Vincent Flanders' comments: You're right. It's a gem of an example of bad web design because there is very little right with it. We have Flash Used Badly. Very. Badly. We also have Mystery Meat Navigation (MMN) in its worst form. (OK, this page has the worst MMN).
Yes, there's a link to a sitemap at the bottom of the home page. Guess what? It's hard to read because there's not enough contrast—the text color is #A7A9AC.
I'm guessing the submitter is using a Mac because the site is viewable—which doesn't mean usable—on my Windows machine using Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera, IE7 and IE10. The folks administering the site apparently don't have a clue about DNS or redirection. If you leave off the “www” and just type enritec.com, the site won't load—which may not be a bad thing.
Other comments #2: I got lucky and clicked on a tile that said "Centrifuges and cascades are our core business" or words to that effect (I couldn't copy from Flash of course). This website is for an industrial/lab equipment manufacturer? And all I get is a choice to watch videos about their products? FAIL, FAIL, FAIL.
Other comments #3: Uranium enrichment is the goal of these centrifuges and cascades. I would think that the market for such items is extremely small and is restricted by both governmental regulation and international agreement. Thererfore, why does this website even exist, other than as some sort of dog and pony show?
Other comments #4: Corresponding colors do not good navigation make. Remember, many people are color blind, or simply won't notice that connection. I know I certainly didn't.
I took a second look at the site using only the dial in the bottom left. Even ignoring the stupid MMN tiles, the dial is a slow and clunky way to navigate the site, which is designed to look good first and to work well second. When you click something, you still have to wait for an animation. Because the dial rotates whatever you click to the top, you can't learn its navigation in a spatial sense—something won't necessarily be in the same place it was last time you looked for it.
If anything, the presence of both the dial AND a large jumble of tiles is worse than just the dial or just the tiles would be. Too many forms of navigation to the same content can be overwhelming, and can confuse users into thinking there's more than there is and make them spend extra time trying to find it.
April 8th, 2013 2:02 am by Vincent Flanders
Vincent Flanders' comments: Wow. Just click and take a look at it. It's a (pejorative term deleted) joke.
Other comments #1: Holy MIT! More like Remedial Visual Studies.
Other comments #2: Um. Wow. It's apparently abandoned. The calendar stops at February 2011, and the calendar archives are missing 2010 entirely. The home page mentions 2008.
The design is somehow freaking me out. Content layers over text and the animated Gifs... And this is part of the MIT website? WTF?
May 29th, 2013 12:12 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: With most websites on WPTS at least I have some idea of what the site is about. But I have absolutely no idea what's going on here. It's not even Mystery Meat Navigation since there's no meat and no navigation!
The mystery doesn't end on this page. If you click the small link at the bottom of the page (called "V2"), it takes you to another mysterious page. Clicking "02" opens another page, and here…well…judge for yourself.
All I can conclude is that in the wrong hands, Flash is a very dangerous tool.
Vincent Flanders' comments: It's a WTF Website. As in “What the Heck am I doing at this Website.” I sure hope it isn't a portfolio website. If it's an art website, it fails because there's no way to tell it's an art website. Heck, it's a massive fail because I can't tell what kind of website it is.
July 15th, 2013 10:10 pm by Vincent Flanders
Did anybody look at this site before it went live?
Submitter's comments: I'm a long time reader, but this is the first website I came across that prompted me to submit it.
I need to register a fictitious name for my business that I'm putting together, and this is the site I need to traverse to do it.
The color scheme is a full-on frontal assault to the retinas and the navigation scheme seems illogical at best. Enjoy.>
Vincent Flanders' comments:
I don't know what menu item I clicked on the home page, but The Wisconsin Register of Deeds listed by County page's color scheme is taken from the home page and I wish they had taken the color scheme from somewhere else.
April 1st, 2013 2:02 am by Vincent Flanders
The links also move, which doesn't scream accessibility to me.
Vincent Flanders' comments: The arrows on the illustration above show the menu items on the “job opportunities” page (located under “us”). If your window isn't wide enough, the links disappear and you can't access them. The sub-links are hard to read under normal conditions because they're light blue.
Other comments #1: Someone needs to quit smoking those left-handed cigarettes while he/she is thinking about web design. Good, accessible web design does not have to be boring. However, one must start by deciding whether he wants to engage in self-expression or do something useful for his visitors.
Other comments #2: This site is bilingual in the worst way. Some of it is in English, some of it is in Dutch, English links lead to Dutch pages. Someone who only knows one or the other is going to have a beast of a time here, regardless of which language they know.
Other comments #3: I was just letting the front page do its thing, to see if any links wandered off the screen. They didn't, but did wind up in a clump in the middle. I poked around some more to see what they sell. Apparently they sell sculpture, but there are no images of their offerings on the site. Links to artists go to their sites, WHICH ARE JUST AS INCOMPREHENSIBLE!
April 2nd, 2013 5:05 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: Here's a great example of a low-contrast page.
Vincent Flanders' comments: So true. The contrast on some sub-pages is so bad (“The Shop” is an example), you can't believe anyone looked at the pages. I thought that the site was designed for one particular browser. If so, it's not Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Internet Explorer.
I thought the “Colors” page has no navigation back to the home page, but it does. Unfortunately, the navigation is a hard-to-read button. Oh, yeah. We have beveled graphics used as text for the logo. This died in 1996. Speaking of dead, Adobe Flash is used in different parts of the site.
Other comments #1: Even if I disregard the total fail with the contrast issue, this site leaves me totally underwhelmed. There is nothing contained in this brochureware site that makes me want to powder coat anything.
Other comments #2: Bland. Most the links on the main page lead to their Photobucket account (to which they could instead set up a gallery on their website), and the About Us section is nearly unreadable. The site overall reminds me of the mid-2000s. I didn't even notice the navigation on the bottom of the home page. Doesn't help that you can barely read it! Automatic fail to whoever made that decision.
June 19th, 2013 5:05 am by Vincent Flanders
It doesn't surprise me that the quality of the food is in inverse proportion to the quality of the website. That's very common with restaurant sites.
Submitter's comments: I'm just back from a trip to San Francisco, which is Coolness Central. But as we both know, suckiness is too strong a force to stop, even there!
We had heard about a particular restaurant and went online to find out hours and such. My wife said, “Come look at this, something's very wrong!” So I looked at the site and I was thrilled to watch 30 zillion images slowly loading per page. Hilarious!
I soon realized that we had the epitome of a right-brain website with no left-brain function whatsoever! It is pretty looking, which fits this type of site. It's all HTML tables, duh, of course! As far as I can tell, it's made with Photoshop slices, which Photoshop then cuts up the main image and barfs out HTML that includes every separate layer of Photoshop.
A mystery remains, because you could just use maybe 1 or 2 giant images per page–what they're doing is totally the hard way. My thought is that maybe the client called and said, “Whaaaa! My precious site is loading too slow!!!” So the designer somehow broke it up into a million pieces and now you have an extremely crude “parallel loading scheme.”
Final bonus: on the menu page, zero SEO because it's all images! Hooray! It's simply unbelievable and I hope you “enjoy” it as much as I did!
P.S. We did have lunch there and the food was great! :-)
Vincent Flanders' comments: Initially, I thought I was looking at a Splash page with no links. I couldn't find any. I went out to the grocery store and when I came back I accidentally clicked what turned out to be the link to what was the “home” page. The link was the word “Enter” but its color blended with the background and I didn't see it.
From a cursory examination, it looks like every page is made out of images. Not helpful for SEO. The text on the menus was also very small and hard to read and needed leading between the menu items.
Another very suckily designed website.
January 30th, 2013 5:05 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: I haven't written to you in about a billion years, but I saw a new sub-site at Verizon today that made my eyes bleed. Enjoy becoming nauseous and jittery while viewing this!
Vincent Flanders' comments: The problems show up on a long portrait monitor. Your eye is drawn toward the numbered red squares. You instinctively mouse over them and the fly-out menus are ugly and the font is hideous. The body text is small and difficult to read because the color is #666—Satan's CSS
Verizon is being “cute” with their navigation. If you know how the navigation works, then it's easy to navigate.
Other comments #1: Oh Yeah, I just love to scroll a modern example of PDF file. The only features missing on this glorified roll of toilet paper are the serrations and the gray recycled paper color. Just throw it down on the porta-potty floor on your way out.
Other comments #2: As with Xerox (Worst Website of 2011), of course the site sucks—and for the reasons already mentioned. Again, as with Xerox, my objective here is to be adopted by the individual who convinced the decision makers at Verizon to pay (big money, no doubt) for this.
Other comments #3: There are other usability issues because services merged. If you attempt to log in incorrectly (say due to a brain fart leading to a forgotten password), the login form not-so-helpfully sends you to a new page to assist you in logging in with your correct domain by adding another field to reset on password failure.
March 25th, 2013 3:03 am by Vincent Flanders
Other comments #1: It makes perfect sense if "what matters most" is confusion.
Submitter's comments: Bruce Elkin has a nice looking website, but when I clicked a link called “blog” in the upper-right corner, it sent me to his blog which is awesomely sucky. In fact, it's the ultimate in animated mystery meat that hides and obscures any good content Bruce might have posted!
And it gets worse! Click one of the graphic boxes on the page and, instead of taking you to a content page, it animates the content into a white page floating on top of the page of graphics. Sure, it's readable and looks great, once it finally loads, but it's slow, buggy, and annoying.
Bloggers and web designers have invested untold millions of hours in figuring out how to present blog content so people can tell what a blog is about the moment they land on the home page, figure out if they like it, and search and navigate even vast amounts of content.
This design throws all that out the window so it can look cool. Bruce, I am on your site to read your posts. Not to wrestle with some web designer's graphic nightmares.
At least on the home page the black pop-up thingy is where it belongs, on the page instead of obscuring the scroll bar or trying to take over the universe.
Vincent Flanders' comments: Back on March 11, I discussed a page on the British Film Industry's website. My comments, only slightly modified, apply to today's site:
Pinterest + Mystery Meat Navigation = Supremely Bad Web Design. The Pinterest website made #6 on my Worst Websites of 2012: They Should Know Better list. I know Pinterest is popular, but popularity doesn't excuse bad web design. The article Why Pinterest-style infinite-scroll layouts are worthless for everyone except Pinterest explains the problems quite well. The bottom line? “The layout works for Pinterest purely because no one goes there looking for something particular, and because it's not crucial to Pinterest's success that the user see any one photo. ”
Unfortunately, visitors Create What Matters Most are looking for information. They need a semblance of navigation to aim them in the right direction. There's no logic to the order and no way to know where they'll end up unless they mouse over a picture.
Stop using jQuery and Masonry to create this crap.
March 11th, 2013 1:01 am by Vincent Flanders
This one's a doozy and it comes from the British Film Institute (BFI), of all people:
The effect is both mesmerizing and infuriating, in a ratio of approximately 30-70%. Whilst probably not the most egregious example of the oeuvre extant, I put it to you that the sui generis nature of this specimen is worthy of mention on the august pages of your site, lest others are inspired by this to create their own version. The prospect of the proliferation of similar sites is too horrible to contemplate.
Vincent Flanders' comments: Pinterest + Mystery Meat Navigation = Supremely Bad Web Design. The Pinterest website made #6 on my Worst Websites of 2012: They Should Know Better list. I know Pinterest is popular, but popularity doesn't excuse bad web design. The article Why Pinterest-style infinite-scroll layouts are worthless for everyone except Pinterest explains the problems quite well. The bottom line? “The layout works for Pinterest purely because no one goes there looking for something particular, and because it's not crucial to Pinterest's success that the user see any one photo. ”
Unfortunately, visitors to this page are looking for information. While they want to explore film, they need a semblance of navigation to aim them in the right direction. There's no logic to the order and no way to know where they'll end up unless they mouse over a picture.
Other comments: What bugs me is that I can't see the image and the "caption" at the same time. Even if you're just roaming around, Pinterest style, that's important. I'm not familiar with all these movies, and it would be nice to be able to read the title of the PICTURE I AM SEEING. It sucks.
June 11th, 2013 11:11 pm by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: Sucky.
Vincent Flanders' comments: Yeah, it's pretty bad. My monitor has a screen that's 1200 pixels wide—and the text is still cut off. Splash pages, for the most part, are dead; however, this site thinks we all wet our pants just to see what's basically a logo. A big, fat logo and nothing else. Waste.
Click anywhere on the “home” page and you'll be taken to the “Our History” page. This site fails to realize people don't like to read that much text. (Yes, it's a problem here at WPTS, but at least I'm providing information about what not to do when creating a website.) The text on the left is also too close to the edge of the screen. A little CSS padding wouldn't hurt.
Here's the fun part. Once you're on a subpage (like “Our History”) and click the Home button, you're taken to the all-logo “Home” page where's there's no navigation except to click and go to the Our History page. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.
May 14th, 2013 3:03 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: I am shocked, shocked to find website suck here: moving banner with flashing and blinking links, animated Gifs, multicolored “new” signs, and longish front page in need of organization and a navigation scheme.
Vincent Flanders' comments: I'm confused. I thought electric cars are the future. If they're the future, the website should be “futuristic”—whatever the heck that means. It certainly isn't a flat, responsive website. It's about as sucky as it gets. OK. OK. It's not as bad as any of the sites listed in Worst Websites of 2012: Beyond The Pale. I was just trying to make a point.
Personally, I'm absolutely stunned by the logo. Oh, heck. I'm absolutely stunned by the whole site.
Other comments #1: Oddly, there are one or two nifty (in a nutty, but somehow appealing way) ideas on this site. The problem is that the general design is just horrible. Please take a little time to rethink the overall design, and I am sure you can get a final product that is much better.
Other comments #2: Kill the animated 'new' icons and the site would be 50% better. Think how much energy would be saved by having static icons!
Other comments #3: I am impressed at the cheesecake on the site links. Earthrace deserves praise for using a well-proportioned model, instead of some anorexic fashionista. The boat in the background looks like it might be interesting if my attention were not being directed elsewhere.
Note: some of the cheesecake is NSFW.
April 5th, 2013 1:01 am by Vincent Flanders
Other comments: Ugh, they use AdSense and now I'm getting ads for Rick Jones Pianos on YouTube and everywhere else I visit that uses AdSense.
Submitter's comments: Supposedly the largest piano retailer on the East Coast.
Vincent Flanders' comments: This comment confuses me. Why? The site sucks. Is the company successful because nobody sees their website, but the company has great word-of-mouth? Is the company successful because the website is so poorly designed, but it matches the expectations of their customers? Do they have great TV and other media campaigns? Would they be the biggest piano retailer in the world if they had a better looking website?
The tables, the borders, the centered text, the long home page, and images are resized in HTML or CSS (PageSpeed says that "Serving scaled images could save 3.1 Mb [98% reduction]" on the Testimonial Page).
It's 1995 ugly.
April 17th, 2013 9:09 pm by Vincent Flanders
When presentation becomes more important than the experience of actually eating the food, then the chef has failed. The same goes for a website.
Submitter's comments: I found this website from an ad in a website that is about genuine food. I trusted the ad, thinking the website must be good if it's on this type of website.
However, upon seeing the site I see only: “click to read.” Then I see lots of buttons, making me feel that using the website is complicated.
Then I actually read the content. The content does not suck.
Apparently, the website is done is a format used in newspapers that you can read on the Internet and catalogs for websites that sell stuff.
The website is unusual in that it has no content except for the “click to read” part. Usually, you can read the content immediately.
Did I mention the website's content uses words that I don't know what they mean—even if Swedish is one of my two native languages?
The website uses a mechanism where the website can be scrolled up and down and to the sides, which I don't know if that exists on other websites.
Vincent Flanders' comments: What's wrong with this site can be summed up in three words: “Flash. Flash. Flash.” Geez.
Other comments #1: Well, that was pointless. Just a Flash flipbook skin of a "website." And the 'click to read' button just sends you to full-screen, which didn't make it obvious until you clicked it.
Other comments #3: When I read "Press 'Esc' to exit full-screen mode" I pressed my browser window's Close box to exit the site.
April 10th, 2013 12:12 am by Vincent Flanders
This is one of the worst active website designs I've ever seen.
Submitter's comments: The home page takes up literally less than a quarter of my screen, and all 8 (yup, just 8) pages are the same ridiculous size. Oh, except for the one that has the completely mismatched tiled gradient background image that was clearly made to fit that teeny viewport.
I don't even remember having a screen small enough for that to make sense, especially by the time websites became a “thing.” Do yourself a favor and don't be tempted to look at the page source; it's guaranteed to make your brain start dribbling out of your
ears. And yes, they're still a functional company.
Vincent Flanders' comments: I don't believe the site is that “active.” As the photo below shows, the home page was last modified on March 24, 2005. It isn't an active site if it's been eight years without a redesign.
The header tells us the home page was last modified eight years ago and looks like it was designed back in the 640×480 days of the web.
This is another of those “I hope they don't depend on their website for business” websites. I suspect they don't need the web. Still, the site sucks.
January 23rd, 2013 4:04 am by Vincent Flanders
There are some pages that are badly designed and then there are pages that are just terrible. This is one of the terribly designed ones.
Submitter's comments: The home page is wide, REALLY wide and you have to scroll horizontally. The text is not searchable because the text is graphics-based and most of the text is in some crazy font that isn't readable. The navigation and legibility are just a nightmare.
If you ever wondered where all the beveled text on the Internet ended up after everyone stopped using this technique, it ended up on this website. Jeez Louise. This technique stopped before my site started in July 1996.
On the plus side, most of the text on many of the pages is readable—but then there's the “Questions” page.
Other comments #1: Holsters are nice things if one carries a pistol; If I carried my .45, I'd have a holster. Some of these holsters look really nice. Too bad the site has nothing to persuade me to buy from them rather than the local gun store or some better site on the web.
This says a great deal about the site:
meta name="Generator" content="NetObjects Fusion 8 for Windows"
Waaaaaaaay behind the times. Guys get someone whose knowledge and tools are more current, and whose design skills are much greater. Last but not least, lose the animated flag, it is cheesy and trite.
Still on the source code, that HTML 3.x markup... wow. It's also using some deprecated tags. [LINK, VLINK...] And Line 12 is malformed.
Table width on the home page is hard-coded at 1338 pixels. WHY? [Which explains the "too wide" issue, as the Guarantee page's table width is hard-coded at 1499 pixels.]
I guess he doesn't want anybody stealing his content via the printer either.
January 17th, 2013 12:12 am by Vincent Flanders
This has to be the single most annoying site I've ever come across.
Submitter's comments: The bizarre autoscrolling… the flashing graphics… the Mystery Meat Navigation with hidden nav elements popping out at random as you move the mouse around (all the while the page scrolls nauseatingly under it)… words fail me! Must be seen to be believed… but I recommend taking Dramamine first.
Vincent Flanders' comments: As I like to say, “Crap on fine China is still crap.” It's a beautiful website, but useless as far as navigation goes. It's no fun to try to read the text, either. I love the jewelry, but I certainly can't afford anything. The company is located in Ojai, California—the word “Ojai” is Indian for “expensive tourist trap.” Well, most of what I saw in Ojai is worth the money, but the town is a little too-too for my taste—just like this website.
Other comments #1: It's very fancy brochureware. Definitely another case of too much form and too little function. It doesn't matter if the site is actually useful OR usable, it just looks and feels so incredibly cool!
Other comments #2: You can't see the product and read its description at the same time. Nobody saw a problem with that?
February 25th, 2013 2:02 am by Vincent Flanders
It's another in a long line of Over the top Websites (OTT). Over the Top sites generally deal with philosophy, religion, politics, end times, etc., but they're generally not mainstream. Most often, they're the creations of liberal loons or raving right-wingers.
Submitter's comments: The only thing that helps(?) in figuring this one out is the header: “Free Energy. Gravity Control. Alternative Science.” The “about” page is only 20 screens, as opposed the home page's nearly 100. I think I'll follow the advice about three screens down: “…No Like? Just skip what you aren't interested in…” and skip the whole website.
Vincent Flanders' comments: What drives me crazy is there are plenty of over-the-top types who have nice looking websites. MemoryHole, by Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theorist Professor James Tracy‘s website looks infinitely better than the run-of-the-mill OTT site featured on WebPagesThatSuck. An even better example of a good-looking OTT website is InfoWars, which is run by Alex Jones.
C'mon guys, you've got Internet connections in your bunkers. Use some of your comrades' design techniques and de-suck your websites.
Other comments: I get my morning chuckle on after perusing such a site. The design is pretty average for an OTT site; a little imagination and creativity would go a long way to at least make it more entertaining.
February 19th, 2013 4:04 am by Vincent Flanders
School children all over America get sent to this terrible, terrible website. Just wait for the awful cursor tracker.
Vincent Flanders' comments: I have to ask myself, “Is this the kind of site school children expect to see?” Heck no. It's an insult to the intelligence of children everywhere. It's just another Over-the-top Website. To make matters worse, they have unmarked Microsoft Word Documents. Click a link and you start to download a document.
Other comments #1: I do hesitate to be too critical, because this person (Cheryl?) appears to really care about teaching biology, and like most teachers, likely has very limited resources for doing so. That being said, I just wish her passion for teaching were expressed in a more credible web presence.
Other comments #2: As a 'hobby' website, it is okay. And for kids, some of the cutesy stuff works. But when the first link is for 'AP Biology', you've got 17 year-olds using the site, not 7 year-olds. My 17 year-old would hit the back button pretty quick, thinking the site isn't for her.
Other comments #3: As a parent, I have often come across these types of websites when helping my child find research information or a project idea. Kids websites are often built and maintained by teachers who do not have the money or time to make good websites. They are frustrating as heck, and super ugly, but probably not going to change.
February 15th, 2013 12:12 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: In general, this website is an ugly 90's-style website, but the real kicker occurs here, where the coder forgot to close every header tag on the page.
Vincent Flanders' comments: What's most impressive is that somebody spent their valuable time trying to figure out what was wrong with the page. Seriously, this is one of the more screwed-up text pages I've seen, but it looks “fine” in Internet Explorer. If you're using Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari, then the text keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. This screenshot demonstrates what happens as you scroll down the page.
Other comments #1: Testing with multiple browsers is a vital part or web design that cannot be overlooked. Also, "you get what you pay for" was never more true:
META name="generator" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"
With that said, no tool is a bad tool, FrontPage, Flash, whatever; the problem lies with one relying on the tool to make up for one's own ignorance of basic design and coding standards.
Other comments #2: FrontPage 5.0 isn't merely the always-problematic FrontPage; it's a seriously outdated version of FrontPage, released between 1998 and 2000 (versions 4-8 are tough to track more precisely, thanks to some stupid versioning decisions by Microsoft, but I can say with certainty this version is from that two-year span).
So is this page actually this old, or have they just used a ridiculously old tool to build their page? There are free tools today that can do a much better job than this without any effort.
February 4th, 2013 6:06 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: Just how many featured articles can a home page have before none are featured? This one “features” a length of more than 100 (!) pages/screens of articles going back to at least 2005. As with many really Over-the-top Websites (OTT), they love to pile it on.
Vincent Flanders' comments: If a picture is worth a thousand words, we could use about 47 pictures. Somebody has taken the phrase “web page” way too seriously. On the other hand, it doesn't take the word “synopsis” seriously enough or it doesn't understand the definition. Let me help them out.
You know you're in for a fun time when you see a link called, “How to USE this Website.” Jokes and navigation share one thing: if you have to explain either one, it isn't working.
On the other hand, for an OTT website, it looks better than most. Probably because the site eliminated the usual strobe color effects and animated GIFs.
Other comments #1: That 'How to Use the Website' page is lengthy. They already screwed up. Also, if they keep it up with the Feature Articles, they'll reach 'Over 90001', lol.
Other comments #2: Home pages that run on forever are a hallmark of the OTT website. Why is it so difficult to break up these rants? Are the "webmasters" mortally afraid that their audiences are too distractable or dumb to click links to new pages?
Other comments #3: I, too, once loved HTML tables.
March 26th, 2013 4:04 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: The web page has a sound file that required me to download a plugin, which I promptly ignored. Page is excessively long, font is multi-sized, multi-colored and even scrolls. There is so much text on this page I didn't even bother reading most of it. Keep scrolling down to see several poorly Photoshopped images and a hit counter at the bottom of the page.
There are few text issues as annoying as large quantities of centered text. This site annoys me. I'm also annoyed by the probably-unlicensed-hence-copyright-infringing use of the Twisted Sister classic song “We're Not Gonna Take It.”
Also amusing are the pictures of “2 Anonymous Chicks” (how can they truly be anonymous when I can see their faces?) and the picture below the 2 anonymous chicks, which is just another proof of Godwin's Law.
Disclaimer: I think I used Comcast in the early 2000's. I don't remember having issues with them, but their offerings weren't as complex as they are today. Like everything, your mileage will vary.
March 19th, 2013 7:07 am by Vincent Flanders
I am especially in love with the way that you can't read the word “Menu” if you should happen to mouse over the left side chevron. It just says “Me.” Kind of sums it up.
Submitter's comments: I look at a LOT of restaurant websites for my area. They have improved over the years. Most of them eventually realized that Flash animation and splash pages don't work for them. But then I found Pulcinella.
It makes me weep because this website was launched a couple of months ago, but still features Mystery Meat Navigation in the form of the chevrons at the edge of the screen. To find the map showing their location, you need to select “Explore” then “Location” because “Map” would be too obvious.
But they like it that way. In the News tab (also under “Explore”), I found this statement: “Our new site exemplifies the modern nature of our establishment with simple, but powerful designs. Customers can explore our delicious menu, make a reservation and view news and details about Pulcinella's upcoming events. We're the same great restaurant, with a fresh new online experience. We hope you love it as much as we do.”
Vincent Flanders' comments: Personally, I hate the navigation. The last link I would ever click is “Explore” because I just know it's going to be something silly. A page will load with a treasure map or something else equally stupid. Surprise. It brings out the menu bar that should be at the top of the page. Navigation is like listening to a joke. If you have to think about it to make it work, then it's failed.
Other comments #1: Well, evidently I failed their Browser Snazziness test, because after some preliminary flickering I ended up on a minimalist Book A Table page. Can I post a screenshot? http://www.lucysworlds.com/pictures/misc/pulcinella.png That's it. Really. The rest of the page is blank. Someone should tell them that browser detection is Out; feature detection is In.
I did manage to experience the full horror in a different browser. But check out the iPad version. At first glance it's better, because there's no Mystery Meat and the restaurant's hours are right at the top. Assuming you can read the white-on-grey six-point type. Then you realize that the entire site has been laid out on one page—and good luck studying the menu because the Pulcinella logo takes up a hefty chunk of the screen's real estate.
Other comments #2: Am I the only one who thinks this website is simply way over-produced? Also, I think someone misidentified their site visitors' intentions. Potential customers don't care about "exploring" your website.
March 18th, 2013 1:01 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: Apparently, the Catholic Church has become heretical since Vatican II—UFOs, and . . . oh, what's the use? Just pick a subject and they have something about how it has meant to ruin the Church. Not surprisingly, it is not run by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (more fondly remembered as the Inquisition). Here's another for the OTT file, but they really need to try harder if they want to get in the top ten.
Vincent Flanders' comments: Just when I thought it was safe to go back to church, this site comes along. On the other hand, it's nice to see some small part of the Catholic Church has a loon website—I mean Over-the-top Website. Maybe it's because I'm a lapsed, Jesuit-educated Catholic, but I don't know WTF this site is talking about. Not a clue. That doesn't really matter. What matters is the site's design sucks.
The links on the home page go on and on. There's no organization. My favorite page is “The Invalid New Mass,” which weighs in at more than 7Mb because large images are scaled down by HTML rather than being physically scaled down (a 1389×938-pixel image [612K] is forced to fit a 175×150 container). There are lots of other problems, but why bother? Crap is crap.
If the people who spent the time to build this “website” had focused their efforts on curing breast cancer, the Susan G. Komen foundation would be shuttered by now.
March 14th, 2013 2:02 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: <meta name=”GENERATOR” content=”Microsoft FrontPage 6.0″>
Do I have to say anything else?
Vincent Flanders' comments: It would make my job easier if you said a little more<grin>.
Part of me wants to give it a pass because it's for kids and kids like shiny things. On the other hand, I don't want to encourage bad taste. After all, our school system rarely teaches art and certainly doesn't teach aesthetics.
For some strange reason, the box at the top left side of the page is not a link to the home page (on the subpages).
April 16th, 2013 1:01 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: Focus, people, focus. Organize a bit—try a real menu. If you have your first page filled with almost-every-conspiracy-out-there, most visitors just might think you are more than eccentric. The site does give some warning:
To best understand this site, we highly recommend the classic movies “They Live” think of it as a partial documentary. Also see “The Matrix” and think of it as an analogy of life on Earth. (Ignore the two sequels).
As a two-for-one, visit the sister site for knowledge of health and conspiracies not influenced by those nasty extra-terrestrials using us as batteries.
Vincent Flanders' comments: Another great example that fits in with my article: Over-the-top Websites. There is a wonderful warning on the home page that would fit right here on WPTS:
If you get upset, stressed or angry after reading anything on this site, do this simple kinesthesiology technique called EMOTIONAL STRESS RELIEF