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

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