Slashdot Mirror


Top Ten Web-Design Mistakes of 2002

yoey writes "Another famous Nielsen year-end wrapup: "Every year brings new mistakes. In 2002, several of the worst mistakes in Web design related to poor email integration. The number one mistake, however, was lack of pricing information, followed by overly literal search engines.""

20 of 542 comments (clear)

  1. You know what I like? by ZoneGray · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know what's a nice usability feature? A server that can handle the load. You click on the link, the page loads. Nielsen should get one of them.

  2. And the #1 mistake of all times is ... by oblom · · Score: 5, Funny

    Forgetting to prepare server for /. effect

  3. They missed one... by misfit13b · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Too Much Flash Animation

    It seems to me that some web designers use it almost like a crutch. As if some needless animation that I have to wait through is going to enhance my enjoyment of a website. If anything, it just makes me want to visit elsewhere.

    1. Re:They missed one... by greenhide · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'd also like to point out that some webdesigners actually develop websites as a job for real living customers. Who pay them. For making websites look like what they want. Pretty websites. And sometimes those pretty websites require absolutely (does that work as an adverb?) sized tables.

      The fact is, browsers are *still* not all behaving the same way, and the only safe way to have a site appear correctly is to use absolute pixels. Stylesheets are nice for simple text styling, but can't even be depended on for font sizes! (Don't believe me? Set up a web page with a style

      BODY { font-size: medium }

      And see how it shows up on IE, IE for Mac, Netscape, and Netscape for Mac. They'll all be different sizes, last time I checked.)

      Since clients want pretty layouts, which includes, necessarily, the use of tables, from time to time absolute pixel widths have to be used.

      Our technique for getting around the 100% of 800 = 805 problem is to set the table to 95% instead of 100%, and then center it on the screen. It also adds to the whitespace on the left and right, so it's actually a pretty good thing.

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
  4. Lack of pricing information (XBox Live site) by davie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our kids are excited about XBox and want to play online, but after visiting the XBox Live site I'm not sure it's going to happen. I spent about 30 minutes poking around on the site and found no information on pricing. This annoys me. I'm not going to buy something to find out how much it will cost.

    --
    slashdot broke my sig
  5. other mistakes by dkone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    lack of real world contact info. sometimes a phone call is required.

    Doug

  6. Web Standards? by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about sites that code for IE only, and won't display anything, or broken tables, or text layered on top of other text..

    It's also annoying when using a high res, small screen, as on a laptop, you crank up the font size in Mozilla or IE and the fixed size tables sites use to do layout make it impossible to read anything. ARGH!

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  7. Re:for those who dont wanna wait on the page to lo by Spoons · · Score: 5, Funny

    For the love of god man! Learn to use the
    tag...

  8. Re:They missed websites that are just unnavigable by archeopterix · · Score: 5, Funny

    You have no spirit of adventure. Suppose that I hit a toaster manufacturer page looking for some technical data on a toaster. It is a very thrilling experience to click the "products" link and have to choose between "wooden products", "red&yellowish products", "other products", "products other than all of the above" and "guess where this link will take you". The products->toasters->specific model path is just boring when compared to that.

  9. /. almost fails the Number 9 by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Funny

    The URL for this article has 70 characters, which is less then the 75 mentioned in mistake number 9. Of course, the post comment page is 109 characters, so I won't be giving it out to anyone over the phone very soon.

    1. Re:/. almost fails the Number 9 by Reziac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you need to voice-quote some obnoxiously long URL, check out tinyurl.com -- it converts long URLs into short temporary URLs.

      Frex, your post's http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=48804&cid=4944 480 becomes http://tinyurl.com/3s1j

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  10. Javascript in links and Flash animation by phylus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think we should be much more worried about the trend in using flash for everything. I've seen sites that have whole link bars, with no special effects that warrant it, done in flash. Isn't that' what an href is for?

    I do a lot of web developing and I've come realize that a lot of things that I want to do cannot be done without having Javascript in the link. While it is sometimes annoying when I'm browsing a site and cannot directly link to a page because they use a POSTed form inside of a Javascript, there are many many positive uses for Javascript, such as history.go(-1).

  11. Last but not least... by gUmbi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    11. Lack of line breaks

    Jason.

  12. Fixed text size? Only because M$ broke it by metalhed77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hmmm, that should be a hard one to do, because a
    <tag style="font-size:20px">
    should do nothing more than render the font with that height, but still allow it to be resized, my website http://www.andrewvc.com uses this and using mozilla I can resize all the text perfectly.

    Unfortuanatly, I just discovered that Internet Explorer 6 does not do and won't let me change the text size. Of what relevance is text in points to a web developer? As usual I expect all trolls to be bash me and tell me to use the standard. Well I don't care, no old people go to my site.

    --
    Photos.
  13. browser type by Khopesh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    how about sites that think mozilla can't render something?
    nothing quite as annoying as
    "you need Internet Explorer 5+ or Netscape 6.2.2+ to view this site"
    ...especially when mozilla 1.3a gets blocked but netscape 6.2.2 doesn't!

    solution: some browsers allow you to change the userAgent.
    in mozilla, the prefbar plugin allows this (among other things).

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  14. a pet peeve by mmcshane · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Fixed Font Size Style sheets unfortunately give websites the power to disable a Web browser's "change font size" button and specify a fixed font size. About 95% of the time, this fixed size is tiny, reducing readability significantly for most people over the age of 40. Respect the user's preferences and let them resize text as needed. Also, specify font sizes in relative terms -- not as an absolute number of pixels.

    OK, this is not the fault of stylesheets. Internet Explorer does not allow the "zooming" of fonts set with pixel sizes. This is a shortcoming of Internet Explorer, not CSS. If this is so important to Nielsen (and I can see why it would be - my vision isn't so great either), perhaps he should look into using alternative browsers (Opera and Moz-based browsers all allow font zooming regardless of how the font size was set).
  15. Re:They missed websites that are just unnavigable by sgage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "A tactit commenly employed is to group products by the model name"

    Yes indeed, quite annoying. Even more annoying to me is when you go to a site for information about a product, click on the "products" link, and are made to choose between "home", "small business", and "enterprise". I just want to see the products and their specs! Don't worry about why! Just tell me what you've got, and I'll make my own goddam decisions!

    Sheesh.

    - S

  16. Re:Numero Uno ... by thomas.galvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Number three
    A home page that is just a logo to click on to go to the real home page. It is often large, slow and adds nothing (good) to the experience
    Number four
    Flash


    I used to feel the same way you do; actually, I still feel the same way you do. When I hit the net, it's usually because I am looking for something particular, and the more hoops/pluggins I have to jump through to get to it, the more unhappy I become.

    When I talk to the people that use my site, on the other hand, I find that at least a good number of them like the "ooh, shiney" parts of the web. I've actually had people ask me to restore the flash intro that the guy who ran the site before me made.

    I find that splash pages (the ones that link to the "real" hompage) act almost like the cover of a book. People process images much more uickly than they do written words, and a splash page allows you make a more reliable first impression than some other methods; and if you compress your images, there is no reason it should take more than a few seconds to load. A splash page, properly compressed, can come in at under 40k.

    I think the hallmark of good design these days is to wrap functionality in a pretty package; make sure that your site is useful/useable, but also make it attractive enough that your users know you care about both your content and their experience.

  17. Why users hate horizontal scrolling by Tim+Macinta · · Score: 5, Insightful
    3. Horizontal Scrolling
    Users hate scrolling left to right. Vertical scrolling seems to be okay, maybe because it's much more common.
    Or how about because horizontal scrolling forces you to scroll once for every line you read while vertical scrolling only forces you to scroll once for every page you want to read? So, there's generally more than an order of mangitude less scrolling required with vertical scrolling than with horizontal scrolling.
  18. Re:They missed websites that are just unnavigable by parc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My wife works for a not-to-be-named textbook company. Their online companion to one of their books was getting incredibly poor remarks. She was in a group working on the problem, so she asked to see the site map. The answer from the web-design group was "site map? We don't have one." So she clarified that she was talking about a design site map. They didn't have one of those, either.

    I wonder how many sites with no site map actually don't even have a design map? I would venture quite a few. Web design is similar to software enginerring: without a good plan, you're gonna get crap out of the process.