Worst Websites of 2012: January to March Contenders
The year 2012 was one of the worst years for web design since…well, since last year. Maybe we should blame it on the Mayans. According to their calendar the world is supposed to end this December so maybe bad web design will end with it <grin>. I doubt it.
NOTE: Those sites that are included in the final listing of the various Worst Websites of 2012 lists have had their links and commentary removed. Links to the new articles have been added.
The Afterlife–Worst Website of 2012? Worst Website Ever?
Ended up being both #1 Worst Websites of 2012 AND #10 Worst Websites of 2012: Beyond The Pale
Bavarian Brathaus
Submitter's comments: While checking the hours on a (really good) local restaurant, I couldn't help but notice their web page is absolutely terrible. Just awful. I can only assume the owner puts all his talent into the food (which is excellent).
Vincent Flanders' comments: It figures that the food is excellent—the site isn't. Sigh. Look. Hire someone, buy a template, do anything but don't create the site yourself. It's like that commercial for a product or service that I can't remember (great ad, huh?). It has a doctor playing violin in a string quartet. Obviously, it isn't going to work. You're not a designer so stay in the kitchen where you belong.
Other comments #1: '90s. So very '90s. Oh, and
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft FrontPage 6.0" />
Nothing surprises me anymore.
Other comments #2: The shameful thing is that this restaurant is located near three large universities (NC State, Duke, and Carolina) so there should be no shortage of college students to design a basic site for little money. Possibly just in exchange for beer!
Bavarian Brathouse (They have changed it)
Bavarian Brathouse (They have changed it)
Ohio Academy of Science
Submitter's comments: The website is stuck in the 1990s and it's terrible to navigate.
Vincent Flanders' comments: They also have links that are unmarked PDFs—lots of them. I viewed the source and counted 103 unmarked PDF links!
The home page has a Google Page Speed score of 14—one of the lowest I've seen. It's major error is it resizes images in HTML or CSS. There are 32 images and if they were properly scaled, the home page would be 2.5Mb lighter. The site doesn't enable caching or compression.
We have too much material on the home page (of course we do), the usual text problems (multiple colors, sizes, etc.). If scientists conducted experiments the way they design websites, all the scientists would have been blown up.
Other comments: I have a soft spot in my heart for folks interested in science, especially since I am also interested (got the scars and an MS from 3 years of grad school as proof). However, these scientifically-inclined folks should either learn the basics of how to build a simple web page, or cough up a really modest amount, such that they can have a site that doesn't make them look ignorant.
One Nation
Submitter's comments: An early front runner. (Does that make it the Herman Cain of web sites?)
Vincent Flanders' comments: I doubt Herman had a website quite like this. I swear I've used this before, but I couldn't find any evidence. Sadly, I guess it reminds me of another political website.
You would think the folks at One Nation might notice there's something wrong with their website if they just looked at a couple of American political party's websites. Does the Republican Party website or the Democratic Party website look like your site? No? Then your website sucks! (I'm not saying these two sites are wonderful, but they're not going to show up on WPTS in their present form.)
Wet Water Equipment Technology
Submitter's comments: Searching for a local service I came across this site.
Vincent Flanders' comments: I suspect this is a large, well-respected company who doesn't understand that their image is being hurt—especially by their images. Many of the images are resized in HTML or CSS. Because someone designed the page wider than 1200 pixels, you have to scroll horizontally to see the complete page. One of the partially cut out images is 581 x 388 pixels, but it's scaled down to 300 x 300 pixels.
The menu items have a white “aura” around them, which shows they were designed for an all-white background. You also don't center text content.
Other comments #1: That godawful flashing text on the home page was enough to send me packing, and I suppose the bit about "Designed by Technogeek - ByteMe Website Design" was supposed to be cute, but all it does is help foster the sense of a lack of professionalism--- this is not a good thing for a website attempting to sell services.
Other comments #2: I might get smacked for this one.... but culture standards over there are a bit different. A lot of AU websites are .... bad. Many sites are flamboyant compared to our standards. I think my web design AU friend would actually agree. His are beautiful, despite the fact he's 100% colorblind. I don't know how he does it.
