Interesting list

[El Kabong]

A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a list
of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.

1. Pop Ups
2. Extra Software Needed to View Site
3. Dead Links
4. Registration Required
5. Slow Pages
6. Out of date Content
7. Bad Navigation
8. No Contact Information
9. No Decent Site Search Tool
10. Disabled "Back" Button

His site is worth a visit IMO because he does include some discussion
regarding each item which I did not include here. According to Mr. Lamm, the
list was based on "many surveys". It certainly includes several of my
greatest peeves (1, 2, 4, & 10)

Did he leave any out?

El

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a list
of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.

1. Pop Ups
2. Extra Software Needed to View Site
3. Dead Links
4. Registration Required
5. Slow Pages
6. Out of date Content
7. Bad Navigation
8. No Contact Information
9. No Decent Site Search Tool
10. Disabled "Back" Button

His site is worth a visit IMO because he does include some discussion
regarding each item which I did not include here. According to Mr. Lamm, the
list was based on "many surveys". It certainly includes several of my
greatest peeves (1, 2, 4, & 10)

Did he leave any out?

Links that turn the same colour as the background on hover -- like
the "File under" links on the site mentioned above.

Pages that do not adjust to the viewer's browser window -- like
the site mentioned above.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a list
of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.

1. Pop Ups
2. Extra Software Needed to View Site
3. Dead Links
4. Registration Required
5. Slow Pages
6. Out of date Content
7. Bad Navigation
8. No Contact Information
9. No Decent Site Search Tool
10. Disabled "Back" Button

His site is worth a visit IMO because he does include some discussion
regarding each item which I did not include here. According to Mr. Lamm, the
list was based on "many surveys". It certainly includes several of my
greatest peeves (1, 2, 4, & 10)

Did he leave any out?

Embedded music.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

11. Links that turn the same colour as the background on hover -- like
the "File under" links on the site mentioned above.

12. Pages that do not adjust to the viewer's browser window -- like
the site mentioned above.

13. Reading a loooong page of microfonts -- like the site mentioned
above.

14. Going to a page that takes a minute to load, on a fast cable
connection (probably his server) -- like the site mentioned above.

15. Using blue text -- like ... yeah, you get it.

16. http://validator.w3.org/ = Failed validation, 34 errors ... oh wait,
we weren't talking about technical flaws, were we?

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Links that turn the same colour as the background on hover -- like
the "File under" links on the site mentioned above.

Pages that do not adjust to the viewer's browser window -- like
the site mentioned above.

Sites that set the default text size to .62em (like the
above-mentioned site).

Sites that end lines with <br> (or <br /> in this case)
breaking lines awkwardly (like the above-mentioned site):

- You have permission to publish this article electronically
in
free-only publications such as a website or an ezine as long
as
the bylines are included.

 

[flade007]

Links that turn the same colour as the background on hover -- like
the "File under" links on the site mentioned above.

Pages that do not adjust to the viewer's browser window -- like
the site mentioned above.

Tell me how would this site (above link) look on widescreen ?

 

[Bergamot]

11. Failure to use even basic typography or correct semantics, resulting
in a big blob of text on screen, like on the site mentioned above. It is
so tedious to read, I can't get past the first couple paragraphs.

BTW, does this guy say anything that Jakob Nielsen hasn't been saying
for about 10 years?

Pages that do not adjust to the viewer's browser window -- like
the site mentioned above.

It's a canned blog template, so that's not really surprising.

 

[JD]

A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a list
of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.

1. Pop Ups
2. Extra Software Needed to View Site
3. Dead Links
4. Registration Required
5. Slow Pages
6. Out of date Content
7. Bad Navigation
8. No Contact Information
9. No Decent Site Search Tool
10. Disabled "Back" Button

His site is worth a visit IMO because he does include some discussion
regarding each item which I did not include here. According to Mr. Lamm, the
list was based on "many surveys". It certainly includes several of my
greatest peeves (1, 2, 4, & 10)

Did he leave any out?

One of my pet peeves is "enlarge image" links that go to images that are
barely any bigger than the original thumbnail.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

11. Failure to use even basic typography or correct semantics, resulting
in a big blob of text on screen, like on the site mentioned above. It is
so tedious to read, I can't get past the first couple paragraphs.

BTW, does this guy say anything that Jakob Nielsen hasn't been saying
for about 10 years?


It's a canned blog template, so that's not really surprising.

True, but changing (or removing) two or three lines in the CSS file
fixes it.

 

[El Kabong]

11. Failure to use even basic typography or correct semantics, resulting
in a big blob of text on screen, like on the site mentioned above. It is
so tedious to read, I can't get past the first couple paragraphs.

BTW, does this guy say anything that Jakob Nielsen hasn't been saying
for about 10 years?


It's a canned blog template, so that's not really surprising.

Perhaps I should have been more critical of his presentation but I was only
interested in his content at the time. He is a retired lawyer, not a
professional Web designer as far as I know, much less a design guru.

If his design was lacking, his points were well made as were those made by
all who responded to my post.

Thanks for the responses... and the critical advice.

El

 

[Blinky the Shark]

One of my pet peeves is "enlarge image" links that go to images that are
barely any bigger than the original thumbnail.

And large images that are downsized via height and width attributes so
you're still downloading 238kb for a small version, thus saving no
bandwidth (read "time") at all.

 

[freemont]

And large images that are downsized via height and width attributes so
you're still downloading 238kb for a small version, thus saving no
bandwidth (read "time") at all.

I've one of the best examples of this EVER.

<http://www.hcbe.net/facilities/splost2012/mossy.html>

I emailed the guy May 4th but never heard back. It's even worse now that
he's added more pictures to the page. When I looked then, there was only
the one 8.4MB pic, shrunk down to 238 x 157 with html. Now the page is
closer to 15MB.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

I've one of the best examples of this EVER.

<http://www.hcbe.net/facilities/splost2012/mossy.html>

I emailed the guy May 4th but never heard back. It's even worse now that
he's added more pictures to the page. When I looked then, there was only
the one 8.4MB pic, shrunk down to 238 x 157 with html. Now the page is
closer to 15MB.

Amazing. If you look up "stupid" in the dictionary, I'll bet you'll
find his photo.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Amazing. If you look up "stupid" in the dictionary, I'll bet you'll
find his photo.

Indeed -- scaled down from the original 8 megapixels.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 110 days, 22:45.]

URLs in demiblog
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/05/31/demiblog-urls/

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Indeed -- scaled down from the original 8 megapixels.

Touché! Good one Toby!

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Indeed -- scaled down from the original 8 megapixels.

Yes!