YOU KNOW THAT WEB PAGE SUCKS IF .... . .

I kicked it all off with : YOU KNOW YOUR WEB PAGE SUCKS IF ... 'SOMETHING MOVES' . . . well, you know everyone now blindly accepts animations, videos, shaking, gyrating, blinking crap all over just about every web page you visit -- but seriously, when something moves, it distracts from the message of the page. Web designers who don't care, or don't have a message and are only in it for the money will load as much attention-grabbing crap as they can. So, if something moves, and it doesn't support the message, or it isn't tasteful, then you know that web page SUCKS.

Here are but a few of the replies from LinkedIN groups

• Bob Parsons ~ I second Fred, and would like to include auto-play videos and auto-play audio. I have a few more: ~ Rant #1: I have noted a wildly annoying trend for advertisers to blast unexpected videos at maximum volume, deliberately ignoring the volume setting the user has selected on their tablet (i.e. MUTE). ~ I am especially annoyed at the CNN.com app for Android. If you click on something you want to read, you may get an unexpected commercial instead which blasts away at top volume on your silenced tablet. Not only that, it ignores your attempts to reduce the volume!
        Rant #2: (Designers, please take note) It seems that websites these days are being designed ONLY for tablets and portable devices. If you view them on a normal desktop display, everything zooms to completely fill the screen. This is not responsive design. It doesn't re-configure itself to look good on all devices. It's exactly the opposite of what everyone used to complain about- that sites were too small on tablets.
        Sorry folks, I don't do design work with my thumbs on tablet displays- I use a normal desktop monitor, and when I visit a website I don't want to move my monitor 20 feet away so I can read it properly.
        When I see a website with 2 inch high black text (representing a heading) and wall to wall images, I click away from these sites.
  #End Rants
• Katherine White -- I would add 'your website isn't responsive, and doesn't have a mobile site'.
• Peter ... let's be a little more "generic" -- a condition of many web sites ... not apps for Android. Bob Parsons has a good one up there -- I was wanting to include that big time but wasn't sure how to vocalize the actual "if.... " So many of the "responsive" sites are huge type, centered and they don't reorganize quick enough when you arrive on a desktop monitor. So you start reading, then suddenly the page jumps and the content is gone. Then you scroll to the content, now smaller type, and it jumps again. Try Peachpit Press's site. It irritates me so much I stopped reviewing their books.
• Aleksandar Topolac -- My opinion on the subject might go against aIl others here, but I would play a devil's advocate and head in another direction and say that judging by the overall direction web design is heading lately almost any web page will suck by default.
        It might sound strange, but think about it for a second. Google is forcing all websites to use pretty much the same method in both design and development department, regardless of the intended purpose and goal of the website. I on the other hand, think that not all websites are or should be built with the same goal in mind and therefore they neither shouldn't be treated as such.
        Just for the sake of argument, let's say you are a photographer. The last thing you want visitors of your website to do is to look at your work (you have spent hours if not days carefully polishing, working on the curves and such...) on some smeared lousy little screen that just couldn't cope with it. So, you would naturally be inclined to discourage your visitors to do that, and instead (even forcefully) encourage them to visit it on some desktop device preferably equipped with some awesome big screen. That in nowadays 'mobile, mobile, mobile' order of the day is just not possible without paying some punishment in Google rankings department. (Not to mention that I have some clients who were forced to redo their website to become a responsive, although due to the nature of their business, not a single visitor ever visited their website on a mobile device.)
        Another example would be the scenario in which the website itself is an art project of some sort, not built with commerce and rankings in mind, but as an art experiment. Say, you are a conceptual artist of some sort and your work by its very concept does not fit the mould required, and your website would then inevitably be seen and judged as a bad one as it doesn't fit those forcefully imposed standards.
        The whole thing about SEO requirements that every website is supposed to follow blindly, reminds me of safety requirements and many other regulations imposed on auto industry which killed the individuality of makers and resulted in today's cars being blend, faceless, unimaginative and no more than appliances on wheels. Most carmakers in the past wanted and produced more than just a plain vehicle that would take you from A to B. Not all were successful in that attempt, but that difference in approach was what set them apart. Somehow I have a feeling that the same road is ahead us in web theatre. After all, don't we see ever more often websites that look and feel the same. Yes, I am aware that it is largely due to mindless use of templates, but the standardization of each and every aspect of the any website could only head in direction of - dull sameness.
        In my mind at least, that dullness and sameness we are heading towards is why you could be certain that your website either already sucks, or will inevitably suck in the future. . . .
• Natalie Hornyak ~ Your web page sucks if nobody wants to spend time there. Period. ~ Good web design is an art and a science, for sure, but some truly ugly looking websites still have incredible Alexa rankings -- I'm thinking Reddit, in particular. On the flipside, you can have the most gorgeous, usable site the web's ever seen, but if nobody goes there, it still sucks.
• Andrew Meza -- Completely agree with Aleksandar. I usually always push for a responsive website, but there are instances where it is not needed or the website or web app requires a native app or mobile website instead.
        I wonder how people here feel about conventions. I feel like conventions is good #UX to an extent but it does pave the way for cookie-cutter websites and a general layout for most websites. Would these websites "suck?" ...
• Aleksandar Topolac -- Andrew, in my mind, yes they would. And on many different levels too.
        The internet is by its very nature very powerful multimedia medium with almost endless possibilities unparalleled by any other out there. But instead of taking advantage of those limitless possibilities, conventions are forcing every single website into same mould be it in the domain of how the written content is being written, how the design is being done or the what kind of code is accepted and which is not. That kind of dictatorship shouldn't and really doesn't exist in any other media I would say.
        If you want to, say, print a magazine in the mix of silkscreen, offset and unique hand drawn elements, which is 100x70cm in size, hand binding it with threads of grass, go ahead, no one is stopping you (whether it is economically viable, is another issue, but it is left entirely up to you). The point is, there is no convention stating that in that kind of package, that magazine shall never hit any magazine stand or any bookshop shelf. Could you even imagine a convention stating that from now on all music has to start in C major and recorded in such and such manner in order to be accepted?
        Why do we let the most flexible media behave in the most rigid manner and quite the opposite of its true capabilities and possibilities? There are many (some already mentioned) annoying things that are present on some websites, but ultimately it should be up to users to decide whether they will hang around those annoying websites, not up to some conventions.
        Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there shouldn't be any guidelines helping those confused to follow, but why promoting some guidelines into 'must follow' hard rules? Soon, anything (anything really) could for whatever the reason become the 'offending' reason for which some website would be obscured from public and almost impossible to find. That just doesn't make any sense to me.
        What the future holds no one knows, but in that kind of environment, it shouldn't really be a surprise if inevitably everybody will play safe, heading instead of towards a myriad of possibilities, towards dull sameness I mentioned. In my mind, Internet should be the birthplace of new and never seen before ideas not repository of some rules.
• Maik Diaz -- If you have music on intro, that really sucks
• Steve Chittenden -- You know your web site sucks if it does nothing. Unless it's a hobby site or getting a return on your investment isn't a goal for some reason, it should put money in the coffers. If that doesn't happen, then the lack of profit is a sign that the web site sucks.
        I have to side with Aleksandar in that the goals of a web site should be up to the individual creating it or having it created. To create a box for what is and isn't good web design and force everyone into that box is not conducive to the diversity that makes the Internet so great. No one authority should be creating such a box. It should be determined by whether or not the purpose of the web site is being fulfilled.
        That said, there are some things that are universally hated. As mentioned, auto play anything and programming a site to circumvent a user settings (such as volume) are bad design choices for any site. However, the first one can have exceptions. Someone landing on a music video page for a rock band isn't likely to be put off by having the video play automatically. Trying to force your latest promo video is annoying to almost everyone and has the exact opposite of the desired effect. . . .
  [EDITOR'S NOTE : for the first 25 years of the Design Center, we were "not for profit" ... we didn't try to make money because we were admittedly against spam, even screen spam. We were "Reader Supported" and had a brisk business as an Affiliate of book, fonts and clip/templates sites ... but Google unfairly judged us harshly for that. If you search for the "value" of a web site today, it's based on profit. We made zero "advertising" profit, so Google ranked graphic-design.com as "worthless" ... LOL.]
• Jon Thornton -- I hate the whole idea of trying to appreciate an artist's work via iPhone, what could be more absurd? And yet I jump through css hoops every day to "dial it in" and it still is a joke in the end. Who really cares that much about a 2x4" image? I don't even bother looking at art or photos on a damn phone.
• James Cole -- When guidelines are used by the uninitiated who is seeking help in creating their own site, they can be good, but currently even seasoned pros stick to guidelines just because Google says they have to. Part of the job of a designer is to create something unique that will accomplish the goals of the person/company paying the bills. If the creators are all trying to follow what Google says they have to follow in order to get to the end product, then I would have to agree with Aleks that all websites that follow those guidelines are going to be dull and lifeless websites.
        As Aleks mentioned every website has a purpose, and if following what Google says takes you away from that purpose then you are doing it wrong. This goes for following anyones guidelines. Yes there are things that will stand out as bad design regardless of how it is implimented, but a professional designer is not likely to use those items in their work. Remember in the past where you ran across page after page of walls of text, all center justified, with flashing backgrounds and rainbow text colors of varying typefaces?
• David Griffith -- I like what Alexander said, people should be free to be creative and to let their imaginations out of the box if they so choose. In the past I've seen some really incredible websites, websites that use java and flash and I don't mean to just play music or a movie or scroll images from right to left across a static banner or with every bell and whistle in creation but rather some really beautiful imaginative pages and yes with some kind of interaction. And if you are an artist, digital or traditional, you want to present your work in a creative way that says you are an artist or a designer or a professional photographer or whatever it is that you do as a creative.
        Too many "creative" and "artists" websites today are anything but creative and / or artistic. They are as Alex pointed out little more than cookie cutter sites. Yes, of course they look different but they look more like the local neighborhood gallery than a place to really show and display your talent and creativity. You go to Behance and become one of how many other artists and designers who though you your talents and abilities and style may be different and the website may afford you some options for making your page different, those options are the exact same for everyone else who uses Behance. There is really no true individuality . . . you become a part of a shopping mall . . . and now html and java just don't cut it anymore, you have to use Wordpress or Drupal or some other that primarily uses templates and so again in the end your website looks like every other website.
      Individuality is quickly disappearing . . . no, you don't need all the really cool bells and whistles but your website should be yours, it should be individual, not the same as everyone else's. I suppose you could look at my website and say it sucks because yes, I built it several years ago and it only uses html and java and I do need to update some of my pages but it tells you that this is a creatives website
• Andrew Meza -- I agree with everyone so far, but honestly, conventions are what a user is accustomed to on the web. If you begin to break conventions (especially the small ones), users begin to get frustrated and this increases the chances of that person leaving your website. I feel that if you want to be creative with a website design, understanding of the medium is number one, but I think user testing would be the second. Who knows? With a unique idea, you may begin another convention in the way a user interacts with a website.
        I find myself designing websites the same way only to satisfy users. I think I will begin breaking some conventions and seeing how creative my websites get. Maybe I should be a UX researcher instead...
        I do think if you want to begin changing/breaking conventions, the changes need to be small, one at a time, and user tested.
• Aleksandar Topolac -- I just find this article through another LI group I belong to. It is not exactly about websites that for this or that reason suck, but it does touch some of the points we were discussing here. I think some of you might find it to be an interesting view on state of affairs in the web world: Why Web Design is Dead by Sergio Nouvel [NOTE: This article was updated in 2015! ]
• Bob Parsons -- Here's something that relates closely to design. You know your web page sucks IF PEOPLE CAN'T READ IT. I'm talking about web pages that use light grey text on a white background. Low-contrast combinations like this are difficult to read under ideal conditions, and impossible on a portable device outdoors. What's the point of making text hard to read?!
• David Griffith -- I agree completely with Bob on this one. I know it's the current trend for both email and websites and it may look attractive but if you have any problems at all with your vision that light gray on white is almost impossible to read, especially when it uses small type and if you're using a small laptop or a small mobile device it is all but useless
• Jon Thornton -- Who's to really say what a website is for. I was attracted to web design when Flash was hot, although I didn't learn it until it was almost dead! I loved those websites with all the animation, and not as a designer, but just another web surfer, I appreciated it enough to learn it, because I really liked the creative possibilities. The ambition to become a web designer came later. I guess my only point is, content may be king, but a great presentation matters. I know this as a picture framer, my primary line of employment.
• Bob Parsons -- @Jon- Yes, I almost forgot Flash! How could I forget websites that flash, blink, dance, prance, jitter, shake, bounce, etc. If it wasn't for the Flashblock add-on for Firefox, I'd be reading books.
• Sebastiaan Witteveen -- Most current (new) websites are to the point and are responsive, which is great! But share te same framework. I think it's borring. Missing the days when there were more creative websites. So... Missing flash, but not all those flashy commercials :-)
• jon thornton -- Yes flash was abused and over used, in your face, and often complicating access to the content. On the other hand, I've seen some exquisite work in flash that was out of the way and with an option to turn if off.
• Matheos Simou -- A large image that takes up the whole screen followed by some information, followed by another large photo, followed by more bit size information, followed by lots of images, followed by more information followed by another large image, followed by more information, followed by contact details followed by I KNOW YOUR WEB PAGE SUCKS!
• Debra Hills -- If I can`t figure out the navigation...I`m outta there! Unreadable fonts. Info covered by ads...ack!
• Kim Spickett -- Comic sans brings me out in hives. Unflexible sites that become mouse type on a smartphone give me heartburn. Counters make me bite the desk. Brassy picture frames made with awful gradients. Little smiley faces that wink their eyes. Names squeezes forcing me to sign up for things. Clients that tell me that their nephew "does web designs". Fine. Use him and leave me alone in my world of tidy code, correctly contrasted/sized typography and graphics that are compressed for a download time before the next decade.
• Jonathan Lawlor Actuary ~ A Web page sucks if I can't work out what the organization does, and how it can be useful to me.
• Juliette Embry
  * Can't find the content I need because too many ads,
  *confusing navigation,
  *too many clicks to get where I'm going,
  *sites MUST be easily viewed and used on mobile,
  *small/outdated design,
  *can't find contact info
• David Griffith ~ Back in the time I saw some really incredible design, some things you;d kill to have in your book, the only problem was that this was the home/index page . . . and then I'd spend the next however long in total frustation trying to figure out what to do next, how to actually get into the website and view the content because no matter where I moved the mouse the little hand never showed its face . . . and then there is more and more instances of "HOW THE HELL DO I CONTACT YOU!!" I have a question and I'm not buying or doing anything else until I can ask a question and get an answer . . .
• Aleksandar Topolac ~ I know I have already stated some of reasons for my belief that all websites either already suck or will soon suck by default. However I just read this article that address the same issue and add some additional reasons. If you are interested here is the link: Hunt-For-The-Webs-Lost-Soul
• Katherine Martin Bad spelling and grammar. So unprofessional!
• There have been recent posts to this thread. . .
• Chandler Turner ~ I have read the comments here. I come from a slightly different perspective in that I am a persuasive content and cognitive brand positioning specialist. I am a "language guy" but I have to be immersed in information architecture, both visual and text.
        Fred - The first comment you made in regard to movement is right on point. A lot of designers will rightfully say "people are attracted by movement". They are right. But that movement can be extremely distracting. Often slides move so fast that messages can't be read, much less remembered. And if you are reading complex text ideas and a picture flashes on the screen - - - "SQUIRREL" - - - and the idea is gone.
        I cannot tell you how many home pages I have read that tell me little about the company or its offers. They might look pretty, but if there is no substantive message, we are all on to the next site.
        The move to minimalist design has not helped either because most people don't really understand it. I see a ton of sites with low contrasted text/backgrounds that are very difficult to read. Bad font choices don't help either. This one is Veranda, made for the web. The use of light gray font on a white background causes eye strain relatively quickly and the person reading it will transfer the feeling of "difficult to read" straight to the product or service as "difficult to use". We cannot separate emotions from what we see.
        Thank you for everything, Adobe I really want to move on by Darin Dimitroff
        Visual design tools have solved the problem of dealing with designers and explaining them the idea in the graphic details. We have so many online design tools available now that are easy, learnable, and handy.
  [EDITOR'S NOTE: Chandler inserted a web reference here, which has dropped from the web. (Cardinal rule #3) but we thought it was very fitting because Technology Review illustrates a "Web Site That Sucks" very clearly!

YOU KNOW YOUR WEB PAGE SUCKS IF ...

So, let's summarize. Here, I've boiled out the 'peeves' stated by readers . . .

#1 something moves or refuses to stand still
#2 there's sudden, unexpected, high volume audio
#3 the site is designed for mobile only
#4 there are walls of text
#5 flashing or repeated pattern backgrounds behind type
#6 things don't work (links don't react, won't scroll, etc.)
#7 the page is unreadable (tiny type, light type, low contrast, etc.)
#8 use full screen images that force you to scroll
#9 Too many ads
#10 cryptic or nonsense navigation
#11 uses unreadable, or inappropriate fonts for text
#12 if there's a Counter
#13 if there are little smiley faces that wink their eyes.
#14 if it forces you to sign up
#15 it's not optimized to load fast (over 7 seconds)
#16 if you cannot figure out the purpose for the site
#17 if there is no "about" page or "contact" page (anonymous sites)
#18 if it takes more than two clicks to get to the destination
#19 if there's a splash page
#20 if there's bad grammar or bad spelling

Like the title says, the article brings up things that no web designer should ever do. Unfortunately, many of the sins mentioned in this article are committed every day by designers and developers all over the world. Here's the list (my translations):

** Not following basic typographic rules
** Being too creative with navigation
** Creating a cluttered navigation system
** Making sure the site requires certain technology to work
** Thinking that accessibility is only about blind people
** Ignoring web standards
** Not keeping search engines in mind from the start
** Basing the site structure on your organisation structure
** Using grey text on grey background
** Skipping the feasibility study

So what irritates these survey participants? Here are their seven biggest pet peeves:

  Pop up ads (93%)
  Being required to install extra software to view site content (89%)
  Dead links (86%)
  Confusing navigation (84%)
  Required registration to access content (83%)
  Slow-loading pages (83%)
  Ineffective site search tools (80%)

7 Deadly Web Design Sins

Here's what INC Magazine has to say in 2010: Designers, are you guilty of creating information-overload homepages or building the "unwelcome screen?" The experts are here to save you.
1. Putting your brilliant design first.
2. Going overboard with Flash.
3. The unwelcoming welcome screen.
4. The boggling homepage.
5. Worshipping the fold.
6. Not addressing the user's real need.
7. Hiding who you are.

30 common mistakes in web design

1. Cluttered layout
2. Too much words!
3. Dark backgrounds don’t get along with too much text
4. They want lists!
6. Difficult navigation
7. Unclear headings
8. Dividing long posts in various pages.
9. Nobody cares about your domain name anymore
10. Nobody wants to log in!
11. They don’t want to visit you all the time.
13. A company is not a name
14. Remember, there are a lot of browsers out there
15. Don’t be condescending about your user’s machines
16. Don’t hide your products!
17. Take it easy with the ads, your site is not a Nascar vehicle!

SEE : The Hip Trend of 2015 Is Designer Government Malware
      This page shows several ways to tell if the web page sucks. First, upon first load, the page settles, then makes a full page jump. Then jumps again. Then a pop-up appears covering all content. Then an animated FLASH ad appears across the entire top of the screen. The ad changes size, doubles, causing the page to jump again. Scrolling BACK to the article, another animated FLASH ad appears on the right. Each time you attempt to scroll into the article, the screen jumps and refreshes . . . this time a double-tall FLASH ad appears to the right, pushing all the right column content down the page, causing the page to jump and refresh again

That just about sums it up

But seriously folks, nobody cares any more. The big web page machines have taken over, and they don't care if you think it sucks, they've got money to make. They have so many pairs of eyes that a few graphic designers who understand what design is doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

And thank you again for reading

Don't forget to join . . . .

DT&G on Facebook
Facebook.com/60secondWindow
Facebook.com/safe.netting
twitter.com/com_seconds 60-Seconds on TWITTER
twitter.com/HarriSo19637900 Teachable Moments on Twitter
Medium.com/@filters ... SafeNetting
Fred / DTG on YouTube (https://tinyurl.com/35jh2255)