Slashdot Mirror

Yes, this whole Mozilla effort, as useful and important as it could have been, falls completely flat for me. The parent's observation makes this site a prime example of mystery meat; and webpagesthatsuck.com has been documenting such bad web design for many years. One of the responses suggests trying to click on the product photos; that's just yet more click-bait design. The best I could do was to enable "display URL on hover" in my favorite browser, and hope that the URLs were at least somewhat self-identifying. Given the site's target audience, that's not helpful.

And now about the reviews themselves. Mozilla's "minimum security standards" bar seems pretty darned low. Just look at all of their "thumbs-up" products that on further inspection say "Yes" to the all-important factor "Shares your information with 3rd parties for unexpected reasons". In fact many "thumbs-up" reviews have 2 out of 3 sad faces in the "What does it know about me" category. How is the target audience supposed to have any confidence in these reviews?

And though there are some tablets in the list, where are the smartphones?

How wonderful, I'm not alone in despising these modern interfaces targeted towards tiny, touch screens, with an aim to suck a user into staring at a screen all day with eternal sliding, etc. Amazing how the site, "Web Pages That Suck" is still relevant, with things like mystery meat navigation, contrast, figuring out the site in less than 4 seconds. Apparently it got so bad he had to take a break, but the author is now back. I would like to see his site as required reading for the graphic designers pushing this stuff out.

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.co...
"You'll get my clunky desktop interface when you pry it out of my cold, dead, hands."

The links to the stories are often not in the write-ups now. Having light-green text on top of a dark green bar is VERY DIFFICULT to read, and the text itself is pretty small. The a class="story-sourcelnk" needs to stand out, especially if that is now going to be the only link. The idea is called contrast...many sites fall victim to not understanding this. It's #3 on the Biggest Mistakes list.

That is an example of the sort of mystery meat navigation that would get a site featured on webpagesthatsuck.com: a logo and seven donuts that respond to mouseover. And it's not even Flash-based MMN; it's MMN in HTML. Back to CFA for me.

Starting with Web Pages That Suck and learning there before doing anything.

Did they nominate themselves for any award? I went hunting for the list of 2011 contenders and it took about four clicks of links, each of which promised me I was going to get to the 2011 contenders. Every time I clicked a link it opened it in a new window. The ads were so intrusive I didn't know if they were bitching about the companies advertising on their page or something else.

Starting with Web Pages That Suck

If only the architects of the Ubuntu operating system would read that web site. Then they'd understand what the global menu in Unity does wrong compared to the global menu in, say, Mac OS X. In Unity, the frontmost window's title covers up the menu bar until the mouse enters the menu bar. WPTS calls this behavior mystery meat navigation

Starting with Web Pages That Suck and learning there before doing anything.

Amazed how many pages get it wrong - from Facebook to Ebay - there are fundamental navigation design flaws which vex users. There's some sort of disease, which has been epidemic for years on the web, steering wide of the Keep It Simple Stupid philosophy of design. Keep in direct, simple and above all light weight.

The shared menu bar at the top doesn't work for me - I would prefer it to be in the app window, close to where my mouse is already. I also dislike the fact that the menu options aren't visible until you move your mouse over the bar.

The problem isn't the global menu at the top; Mac OS has had that since 1987 when MultiFinder came out. The real problem is the second thing you stated: a mystery meat global menu.

Sounds like the same thing that happens with Linux. People don't like it. Why? I dunno. It's "different" or it's not "supported" or it's "slow" or it's "communist" or who knows what else.

How about "not compatible with the applications that I need to use" or "not compatible with the hardware that I own"? I've run into both at various times, as you mention with Sibelius, NWN, Reaper, etc. Or they disagree with the direction in which Unity and GNOME Shell are headed, such as Unity's mystery-meat menu bar that's often half a screen away from the focused window. Granted, Mac OS X likewise has a problem of the menu bar being far from the window, but at least its global menu isn't mystery meat hidden behind an application's title bar.

but that's more nVidia and ATI's fault than anyone else

Assigning blame is one step. But if the blameworthy party proves unwilling to work well with the maintainers of other components, then even though it's not Linux's fault, it's still Linux's problem to work around.

But I use a Windows box for some things that just don't exist on Linux [yet]... like a good music notation program

I can has LilyPond?

You do realize when you hover over the dots, you see icons

I believe that's called mystery meat navigation.

Just because a spec isn't finalized doesn't mean some of the feature haven't been implemented. You can find what's been implemented and just maybe, impress your boss.

The web page you linked is an example of what can go wrong with HTML5 in the wrong hands: it ends up just like Flash in the wrong hands has ended up for years. Not only does it use mystery meat navigation, but it also takes literally four seconds from when I move the pointer to when another wedge of the graph lights up. I'm using the latest release version of Firefox (3.6.10) on Windows XP.

Sorry, wasn't aware that having a laugh was forbidden. Next time you're round at the palace having tea with the King of The Internet better ask him to take this down.

Seriously, did the cat piss on your cornflakes this morning?

``I don't see how the final collection won't end up online, but how is elusive -- maybe a torrent of a bunch of zip files, or as a curated collection, or as a bunch of hard drives. However it is, I'll make sure people can get it, somehow.''

Based on my memories of visiting various Geocities web sites, perhaps the "Web Pages That Suck" site could offer them as downloadable examples of how not to design web pages.

There's still Web Pages That Suck. :)

And the Chinese webmasters and users still believe in a "busy" front page.

Even portals reflect that mentality. Examples:

• Yahoo! USA vs Yahoo! China.
• Youtube vs Todou

It is rare indeed for Chinese websites to be minimalist. Examples:

• Google USA and Google China.
• Baidu

One thing I wish you would have added wouldn't help the truly blind, but it would surely help all the over 40 geezers. That's stop using red on red, blue on blue, and especially gray onb a slightly darker gray.

Stop using non-scalable font sizes that break Firefox's [CTRL][+].

Stop trying to make the screen conform to a given size. People have different sized screens with different resolutions. It isn't paper that you've printed and dictate the size of. Your anal control-freakery just gives you a bad, ugly site with too wide of margins and wasted screen real estate, or worse, horizontal scroll bars.

Actually reading http://www.useit.com/ or http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/ would go a long way to fixing both your gripes and mine as well.

Thanks, since it's one page I will read it.

OK, I read it. I'll be tempted to click on another C|NET link now. Someone should link to detroit Electric's web site, even though it does merit inclusion in WebPagesThatSuck.

Here is a link to photos of some of their vehicles. here are some press releases.

If you click the link from C|NET you get their splash page, which has a picture of a really cool looking futuristic car next to the antique.

Thanks!

I think the problem is that you aren't differentiating good graphic designers from bad... a lousy programmer makes code that just doesn't work, a lousy graphic designer does the same... a good graphic designer makes a visual layout that works, ie does what you want it to do, in much the same way a good programmer makes something that effectively does what it's supposed to do. The problem is, it's easier to identify a bad coder -- the application does not work -- than a bad designer. A decent designer who works with the web will have studied usability. Two sources if you do want to learn design: http://webpagesthatsuck.com/ an oldie but a goodie, I find it's often easier for students to identify bad than good, and you can learn alot from the mistakes of others. http://www.bamagazine.com/ Before and After magazine... gets a little technical, but talks about the science of design

The answer sheet: If you check the box for any of the questions, your web site sucks. Period.

There is a really big problem, though. It takes a great deal of knowledge to fill out the checklist. You have to know how your site is constructed and you have to have a good understanding of web design. If you don't know what a MARQUEE tag does or that your site's content came from a Microsoft Word document and was converted to HTML, how can you fill out the checklist?

Note #1:
Apparently, nobody likes to read much, which is why I haven't put a lot of explanations or outside links in the checklists. I've been looking at sucky design for the last 11 years and I've only been wrong once. That's a topic for another day.

Note #2:
Yes, WebPagesThatSuck.com fails to pass the checklist. The site's design has always sucked.

Checklist 1: First Impression / Big Picture

• We've designed our site to meet our organization's needs (more sales/contributions) rather than meeting the needs of our visitors.
• Our site tries to tell you how wonderful we are as a company, but not how we're going to solve your problems.
• It takes longer than four seconds for the man from Mars to understand what our site is about.
• The man from Mars cannot quickly find the focal point of the home page.
• The man from Mars cannot quickly find the focal point of the current page.
• Our site doesn't make us look like credible professionals. Our site doesn't make visitors feel they can trust us.
• Our home page -- or any page -- takes more than four seconds to load.
• Quickly scanning the page doesn't tell our visitors much about its purpose.
• We don 't put design elements where our visitors expect them.
• We have not eliminated unnecessary design items.
• We don't know which design items are not necessary.
• Our site breaks when visited with the Javascript turned off.
• Our site breaks because of back-end coding errors.
• We say "Welcome to..." on our home page.
• Our site is Flash-based (and this is what our site looks like to people without Flash.)
• Our site's navigation is Flash-based.
• Our site uses a splash page (unless it's a liquor, porn, gambling, adult, tobacco, or a multi-lingual / multinational site).
• Our site makes visitors register before they can enter.
• Our site uses two or more splash pages.
• Our site's TITLE tag is something like "New Document", "Index" and not the name of your company or other search-engine friendly terms.
• Our site has a sound file automatically play in the background when a web page loads, but we're not a record label or musician
• I don't know if our site looks the same in the major browsers.
• Our site doesn't look the same in different browsers.
• The important content does not fit in the first screen.
• Our pages have too much/too little white space.
• Our site uses pop-up windows.
• Our site forces visitors to install weird plugins.
• Our site has "Download latest browser" text or buttons.
• Our site prominently displays what hardware and software was used to create the site.
• Our site's design was "borrowed" from another site.
• Our

I have to post anonymously in order to confess that I copied the paragraph from their precious EULA and their unlinkable URL to Vincent Flanders' site: Web Pages That Suck: http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

I occasionally take a look at Web Pages That Suck to get a feel for what NOT to do.

In summary: don't be doing this. It's not big, and it's not clever.

I case you haven't figured it out, it's deliberate.

...check out the web pages that suck web site. There's a lot of good advice there and who knows, your site may be listed there.

• He delegitimizes spam-fighting cases by attempting to ridicule judges with his website, judgejokes.com. This is even more instrumental than it seems:
  • It is registered by his censor-fighting organization, Peacefire. Because making fun of judges is totally a worthwhile project for an organization as such.
    
  • It documents both his solicitation of other spammers, and lack of understanding of the law.
• He's worked on filter-circumvention software, which made news years ago. A direct quote from that site: "That software, Haselton and the IBB acknowledge, could have other uses here at home".
  
• He spams Slashdot with countless articles that could be summarized to 1-to-2 lines (and often are by comments shortly after being posted). A few of these are linked as related articles above.
  
• He takes huge issue any time that any of his emails aren't received. This article is evidence enough.
  
• And a few other things. I know I'm forgetting many. Anyone else want to step in?
  

A lot of work goes into weeding out content from opinion and snotty "here's an example of what NOT to do" stuff.

...make sure your site doesn't suck.

A prime candidate for Vincent Flander's site if ever there was one.

The whole site reads like the rantings of an unhinged mind. Her cause might be noble, but she'd be more effective getting therapy for her own psychological scars before helping others deal with theirs.

The CAPTCHA is "psycho". An omen?

The design on this page is truly something. I hope somebody will nominate this page to http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

Well, the Start menu is an absolute abortion, and always has been. It is a horrible and awkward way to open applications. You can fit a LOT of things on the dock, since it can be shrunk very small and magnified on mouse-over.

And it may just be a matter of preference, but I HATE having all the windows of an application classified as their own application. All it does is clutter everything up. Why do you think tabs are such a great idea? Not to mention Exposé, which handles navigation between windows perfectly.

The taskbar is further cluttered by having the system tray taking up a good chunk of the corner.

As for the top of the screen, the Apple way is MUCH better than the Windows way. I hate having toolbars in the Windows themselves. It's just annoying. The top of the screen is the perfect place for them and it's very convenient to be uniform. And, for the record, I've never known anybody to use the top of the screen for their Windows taskbar.

Why waste time with a single lone PCMag article that attempts to do what Vincent Flanders and his site (and books) webpagesthatsuck.com has been doing for an entire decade?

Nnnnooooooooooooo!!!!!

An entire world of Mystery Meat, I don't think my eyes could take that

I don't think I have ever enjoyed browsing a site that has exclusively used flash. One of the biggest benefits of HTML is a standardization of GUI controls, with flash that goes right out the window. The only flash sites I have seen that are not totally annoying and worthless are from car manufacturers, they have huge budgets to spend on design and development of their sites, even then they are substandard to HTML sites in usability.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/main.html
http://dack.com/web/flash_evil.html

What's more, it seems like Microsoft is building some of the most ambitious security components of Windows Vista not for its customers, but for itself.

I think of "Web Pages That Suck" as the Razzies of the web.

I used to check out LOSERS dot ORG as well, but that site is more a condemnation of people than of web site design.

I think this site made it onto Web Pages That Suck a while ago, so I'm glad that I can now recycle my comment of "Non-Flash user? Get to the back of the bus!" ;)

Very good examples, and good point.

I have one question on your examples, it is whether it's better to put the "Save" button on the left (like Windows often does) or right (like this Mac example).

I also wonder if there are real serious studies on usability done for Windows interfaces, and where can I read about them.

I read some articles by Jakob Nielsen http://www.useit.com/ but I find that his webpage doesn't actually make me confident in his knowledge (I find it repulsive and not that good in highlighting useful information) and also visited this funny website http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/ but I still feel I haven't learned much about usability.

The "impossible to navigate due to random icons and no labels" design technique is informally referred to as mystery meat navigation (presumably in analogy to an unlabelled tin of meat). I used to have semi-mystery meat icons on my homepage too until I realised that it looked like poop.

You forgot the the link: http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

The drop down menus on top are gone, instead clicking one item in the menu bar switches the toolbar to the items of the former drop down menu.

Where's the text? Or am I supposed to be able to read the icons? How does Microsoft plan to justify what could be mystery meat navigation?

My designs tend to have a very small footprint and require minimal bandwidth. While I was building light weight search engines, the clod who over-saw our website put a massive graphic on the home page. Those, like myself, still on 2400 baud modems at the time had to sit and wait for that The Bob damn thing to load.

Years later I was working with United Airlines Air Cargo and some brain at the top elected to replace a very simple, not pretty, but very simple interface with javascripts galore, whizzy graphics and image mapping, all in a kind of Black on Black, which would have Hotblack Desiato break out in a sweat, dead or not. It didn't work and they'd spent big on it.

This isn't really an ugly site. On the other hand /. ... hmm.

Here's a really nice webpage. I mean a nice example of a web page that sucks!

And the name's annoying, because I always get him mixed up with this guy.

The author describes multilinking as something lacking and almost *necessary* (!?) I don't get that.

Looking at the implementation (yes: i use Firefox, but that's not important now) it's just a pop-up menu of clickable URLs!

Sorry guys, but I cannot see how this is better than "proper" links.

If I need to link to multiple places, multiple <a href="..."> tags will do the trick nicely. Since the links will go to different places, they deserve different textual descriptions and thus different <a> tags. Just giving the user a list of URLs is bad: it is also known as Mystery Meat Navigation [webpagesthatsuck.com]. You need to give people hints about where the link goes - stuff that will actually help in their decision of whether to click this link or some other link. Just the URLs isn't enough - 12 out of 10 people don't understand them anyway.

Using javascript for this is simply evil: It will make the user experience reliant on javascript and thus shut out a large number of viewers. And you have to deal with javascript incompatibilities between browsers too.

And then you suggest making a browser plugin too? Why why on earth why? Should our pages rely on that being installed too? Thank you, but NO thank you.

To cut a long story short (i know: it's a bit late now..) This just re-invents the wheel. badly.

The only possible use I can see for this is for listing mirrors or some primitive form of load balancing. And both of those uses has far better solutions available already...

Ah, multi-target urls? I picture this as clicking 1 link, opening 2 different links; though, drop down menus all over a page could be just as annoying.

I'm picturing yet another feature that will only useful to spam companies. I'd like to throw this idea in the trash next to pop-up(under) windows, blinking text, flash pseudo pop-ups, and the marquee tag.

None of which are bad in and of themselves, just how they are used. All we need now is for wikipedia to turn into an annoying version del.icio.us, with every word linked to search results of that word. (BTW, the link for "that" I believe is the definition of irony.)

Now, imagine this used on a whole page, with each one popping up a list of 20 links. This isn't a new idea, but just the idea of everyone using it just turns my stomach.

What is your problem with Dashboard Widgets?

Mystery Meat navigation. The only way I was able to find their Widget Showcase was by clicking on teeny tiny text in the top blog post. If you want people to come to your site to *get* widgets, you need to make it easier for people to *find* widgets. If it's a site for developers, you need to make it easy for them to find useful developer stuff like code snippets, examples, and discussion forums.

<rant>What are those icons supposed to be, anyway? Home, Interrogation, Folder, Bookmarks, Search? That's my initial impression after staring at them for probably several seconds more than casual visitors would. If I bother to roll over the pretty pictures, I get Home, Showcase, Forums, Links, About. What is so freaking hard about putting text on the normal state so people can see that they are buttons and see where they go?</rant>

see http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/mysterymeatnavigat ion.html/

He didn't have flash until the 10th or so of this month. It was pure html and sliced images. I don't know why he got it converted to flash, I really just... don't.

It's been html the whole time it's been up, since 2001 or whenever. It's gone through quite a few major redesigns, originally as "jet pack industries" it was an image map of a factory and the stones out front had the words + links. before the tour it was just a front page of the album cover along with tour locations. At one time, they used a design from OSWD. Now, for some unknown reason, it's flash.

Feel free to check The Archive. According to that, the relaunch happened after Feb 13.

Disclaimer: I'm not defending flash, it sucks. I'm defending xomc for resisting flash for so long.

You can see even worse things here.