The Cardinal Sins of Web Design

Sorry about that - pressed the wrong button.

Just about everything you do in web design is a cardinal sin in someone's eyes.

Rather than 'frames are bad' or 'pop-ups' are bad it makes more sense to me to use appropriate techniques for the needs of a particular site - in terms of intended audience, client wishes, budget, etc. Frames are supported by just about all browsers these days and why load the same navigation buttons for evey page than have them scroll off the screen?

My cardinal sin in the past has been playing with DHTML and Flash to make pretty sites which are a nightmare to update (check out http://www.jollygoodsites.com)

Usability can be enhanced by judicious use of Flash - by making the browsing experience more enjoyable and presenting otherwise boring content in a dynamic way you help get a message across.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fishee
I hAte iT wHEn PE0plE TYpE lIkE tHIs 0r sUbsTITute zERoEs f0R tHE LetTEr 0. Also, poorly translated websites that make the designer appear like a moron. And I hate sites that allow banners which flash in bright colors and at a rate of speed that may cause seizures.

As for content, I think the main reason there is insufficient content in many websites is due to the client's inability to provide it (or desire to provide as much as *you* think should be given).

I don't wanna start a flash-bash, but a friend's attitude summed it up for me pretty well when I asked her about flash stuff....she said "I don't like things popping open and wizzing around and distracting me from the reason I came to visit. I came seeking information, not a circus act."

I've since cut way back on my desires to flashturbate.

-fishee

---

Your points are well taken. Most of what you seem to hate I would classify as Badflash. BTW, "flashturbate" is inspired!

Your friend's attitude may be typical, and attending to it may actually cause the medium to evolve/mature. Therein lies the artform. QED :p :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OddDog


flash is an artform

NO NO NO NO.

but then in four pages of posts on what is hated about web sites, only I have talked about content.

Why ??

---

flash can be an art form but the program can be a design tool which is more practical say in the commercial art sense. take photoshop. it can be used for commercial design but to create computer generated fine art. however the two can cross paths, that is commercial art cna be seen as a piece of fine are. and the other way arond. all though i dont know if any expamples.(if any one can find any that would be great.)

yes content is important, however if you look at the subject of the thread it is about design. granted you can go to a site that has a great design but awful content. a non web example the same thing with magazines. ever look at a magazine that has great graphics, the layout is near perfect or perfect, but you dont want to read a thing in it, however some person sitting in a living room someplace else is reading that same magazine because they enjoy the content. that is the only reason why content wont be a part of a well designed site or well designed anything.

i keep reading this thread and everyone complains about this or that. i think somewhere along the lines something has been forgotten. good design will always send a message that everyone can understand. good web design will create a site that anyone can use and not get lost or confused. the information will be easliy acessible and not lost amoungst over bearing graphics images or words. it doesnt matter what style the designer uses.

<sarcasm> Oh man! can anyone tell me where I can play me some online craps and win it big? Where can I buy a teeny webcam, and what excactly can I use if for? I gots to get me one!</sarcasm>

Seriously, though, I think I am doing something very anoying with my website, that is I embed the flash at 100% instead of set pixels.
My rationale was that the visitor wouldn't have to enlarge the browser to see the full screen. But then some subsequent screens are set in pixels anyways, so moot point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FairyJanis

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OddDog


flash is an artform

NO NO NO NO.

but then in four pages of posts on what is hated about web sites, only I have talked about content.

Why ??

---

i keep reading this thread and everyone complains about this or that. i think somewhere along the lines something has been forgotten. good design will always send a message that everyone can understand. good web design will create a site that anyone can use and not get lost or confused. the information will be easliy acessible and not lost amoungst over bearing graphics images or words. it doesnt matter what style the designer uses.

---

EXACTLY! Somewhere in there you managed to say what I was trying to convey. An artform is not synonymous with a piece of artwork. I agree that the message is king, even at the expense of artsy-ness.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon Chapman
Sorry about that - pressed the wrong button.

Frames are supported by just about all browsers these days and why load the same navigation buttons for evey page than have them scroll off the screen?

---

Jon makes a good point. I've been building simple sites using frames and am kinda taken aback at the hostility towards them. I just make sure that my content fits inside a 800x600 window.

I'm curious what kind of navigation you use instead of frames How do you keep a nav bar in view that doesn't require page by page updates?

I get that this is a what's bad about site design not a what's good thread, but I figure it's worth a wonder.

I agree about good design being about conveying a message well and effectively - the problem with the word 'design' is that in web terms it's as much about how something works in light of a huge number of considerations as it is about how it looks, but to the layman it is often just about appearances.

Anyway I've been writing down a list of things that get on my tits:

DHTML banner ads where you load a page and some crappy ad suddenly covers half the page.

Popunders are equally insidious. I'm getting sick of adding addresses to my hosts.sam file.

Tables with no padding - I hate text butting up right against things. (Not a big crime - I'm just fussy)

'What the f**k?' sites - where you haven't got a clue how to get in, what it's about, and there's a general air of 'aren't I clever' about it.

Big unskippable intros / some weird plugin you've never heard of required to enter / unoptimised graphics (Here's me and my dog (300k)...)

Sites that are trying to do something clever with javascript/DHTML but haven't tested it properly and part of it keeps scrolling off the page, all the layers are overlapping etc.

Sites that require IE at 1024x768 - it's one thing to recommend a browser & resolution but by the time anyone who doesn't meet the entry requirements and bought a new monitor, they may have forgotten the URL and why they were there in the first place. Also, WebTV is on the increase & requires lower resolutions.

Badly thought out navigation - both in term of site structure, where it is on the page, not using groupings that make sense, ignorance of basic ergonomics in interface design.

People who list things they don't like on forums as if they've never done a bad site in their life. (Ho ho)

Lack of originality. (Although originality must be tempered with giving the end user an interface that they can understand and use.) I mean the way someone has an idea and the next week every bloody site looks the same.

I'd better shut up before I fill the page up...

Jon
"Why am I posting on Flashkit when I should be in bed?"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by todd.o.callen




EXACTLY! Somewhere in there you managed to say what I was trying to convey. An artform is not synonymous with a piece of artwork. I agree that the message is king, even at the expense of artsy-ness.

---

a well designed anything wheather it is a website or an advertisement for print, the way the message is expressed is just as important as the message. a good designer will never compromise the design to express the message. an experimental site is just that experimental that is why theie design fits with what they are trying to do.

form should follow function. think along the lines of a sneaker. someone designs those and they still are apealing and usable. if you had a sneaker design that was not useable the form then would not follow function.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon Chapman
Sites that require IE at 1024x768 - it's one thing to recommend a browser & resolution but by the time anyone who doesn't meet the entry requirements and bought a new monitor, they may have forgotten the URL and why they were there in the first place. Also, WebTV is on the increase & requires lower resolutions.

---

A bit off topic, except in the sense of preventing people (that means me :D) from having to go to virtual confession to redeem themselves after having committed a Cardinal Sin of Web Design, but does anyone know what the WebTV screen resolution is? Does 800x600 cover WTV users as well?

b

Quote:

---

A bit off topic, except in the sense of preventing people (that means me :D) from having to go to virtual confession to redeem themselves after having committed a Cardinal Sin of Web Design, but does anyone know what the WebTV screen resolution is? Does 800x600 cover WTV users as well?

---

I think the worst case scenario is about 544x372. The WebTV site gives it at 560x420.

I don't design for that resolution - I'd rather they gave up and went out and bought a PC to be honest.

It depends on the target users of the site - if it's b2b/corporate/designers/nerds you're pretty safe at higher window sizes.

If anyone's bothered there's a webTV viewer from http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/WebTVVwr.asp.

They also only support up to Flash 4, and they've done their own variations on HTML like adding attributes - eg. <INPUT TYPE=text CURSOR=blue USESTYLE> - mostly about controlling the cursor, the big yellow focus rectangle they use & some proprietary features like a background gradient.

I think you would have to completely rewrite most sites if you want them to work on WebTV. I'm staying well away from it and hoping it either evolves or dies a natural death.

fullscreen popups which have the tiniest content in the middle .. ie sites designed for 800x600, placed within a fullscreen popup, being viewed on a monitor higher than 1024x768 (or even worce, a 640 fullscreen site, being viewed on a screen greater than 1024). at work, we use dual monitors .. so that too is a pet hate, cos of course the work is sliced straight down the middle, and there aint nuffin' i can do about it.

i also don't like confusing navigation, or deliberately cryptic .. i find it self defeating.

:)

Small sites that talk about "we" when it's quite obvious there's only one sad git involved.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OddDog
flash is an artform

NO NO NO NO.

but then in four pages of posts on what is hated about web sites, only I have talked about content.

Why ??

---

I think my clients have a content disorder. At a meeting yesterday for a corporate site (home-builders), the aim was to discuss the mockups that I had created and to discuss functionality, colour scheme and try to get some of the content.

After going through everything we needed, I promised a mock up of the whole site and then asked when we could have the actual content.

They looked at me blank.

I explained that the site needed content, I didn't know much about building myself and therefore would need a copywriter or someone from their end to provide me with content for the actual pages.

They looked at me blank.

I explained that I could possibly lift the content from their new corporate brochure.

They looked at me blank.

Then, the Managing Director said "We would like some flash in it!"........

Makes you wonder why you bother doesn't it?

When looking at this from a commercial point of view all links to external sites should open in a new window as to keep the user on your site. Albeit if someone is using a low spec computer as I do at home, it becomes a nightmare on resources every time a new window opens.

Make your own calculated decision taking into consideration the kind of site you’re building and who you expect the main users to be. Web design is not just about how a web site looks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by [email protected]
When looking at this from a commercial point of view all links to external sites should open in a new window as to keep the user on your site. Albeit if someone is using a low spec computer as I do at home, it becomes a nightmare on resources every time a new window opens.

---

Useability guru's disagree with you there, they say the user should be able to open their own new window if they like (shift and click or right click)

I hate people roasting developers over compatibility notices. a developer should be able to cater for what ever technology they wish or their client wishes if you don't like it, vote with your mouse and don't go there.

"Hello, Blockbuster? Yes, i'm outraged!! I've just bought one of your DVDs as it says i get 'special features' for my extra fiver but not only will it not play in my VHS it's got stuck inside..."

:p

the problem with usability gurus saying people would prefer to choose whether to open links in new windows is that most people don't know how

i know (and work with) people who are proficient in computer use who still don't know basic shortcuts and hot key combos in fairly standard software (web browsers being above all else)

unless you spend time learning how to get the most out of the browser you end up in a limbo of knowing enough to get around but not enough to take full control of your web experience

designers should make sure that their message is not lost and popup external links are the best current technology for this

the main thing that puts me off a website is tiny text that doesn't resize - if the text won't fit where you want it to then redesign

overusing intros etc. can be annoying but broadband technologies must be seen to be needed before takeup will increase (UK at least) and this is one way of showing that a higher connection can give more (not necessarily better!) content

Quote:

---

If anyone's bothered there's a webTV viewer from http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/WebTVVwr.asp.
[/B]

---

Thanks for the link :)
Oh my god! That thing is hideous! People are not actually paying to use that are they? WebTV should pay the users! It does appear to understand Flash4 in some vague sense but I looked at a site I've been working on that has a couple of small flash movies that function as buttons for the site and it does not understand OnRollOver, they're all stuck in that position :(
Flashkit looks sort of funny though :)
b

All this nastiness about pop-up windows, ugh. As I see it, pop-up windows are not ALL bad. Using them to provide a "clean" piece of flash can be a good thing. For example, a "click here to enter" page that leaves the browser window as-is so the user can go back to surfing is helpful while allowing the (and I don't use this word lightly) designer to ensure that her/his work will appear AS the artist INTENDED in a custom window. Nice touch if you ask me. Another is a radio feature with a selection of dynLoaded mp3's for the user to select and listen to, appears in its own, small window (400X80px) and allows the user to continue using the site and at will control the track selection, volume etc without interrupting the rest of the experience with the site. whew...

Über-irritating are:

Frames: there oughtta be a law against 'em

flashing text = evil

colors and fonts... (I think I speak for all long-time print pros) color thoery and the proper uses of type are the conerstones of a sucessful job and inoffensive design. Unfortunatrely there are too many arm-chair web designers with NO clue how to use type and color.

designers who dont share: We get better when we skill-share. 'nuff said.

the "menu on the left, content on the right" layout that 90% of sites are based on. (yawn) Can anyone say VISION?

designers who sacrifice all potential coolness to pander to netscape v2 or AOL users. What's up with this new browser version phobia?

ok thats my little rant.
Grady Broyles
polymorphic:studio
San Francisco

using ::: and \\ everywhere to convince people you are really advanced.
no, really, we are!!1


like ..
::,OMGOMGWALLHACK\\:: ::Webdesign::\\

i mean .. it was cool at first but come on, no one is impressed anymore. another thing (not really design, but a content problem), is trying to explain in the 'services' or similar section that OMGOMGWALLHACK!!Web Design can use php4.5112, mySQL.1250101pie and OMGOMGTML to make *your* website all purdy and speshul. lets face it, the average customer has *no* idea wtf that stuff means, you are much better off saying "Dynamic Content with Database support" or something to that effect ..