Forum Moderators: open
What is your pet html/code peeve when visit a site. Mine would be:
- non underlined links.
- micro fonts
- pastel or light grey fonts (some hard to read color combo).
Java applets are startin to get to me, also most of the local radio stations around here. It seems to be a radio station thing because I ended up on one in CO that was just as bad. They use alot of different colors and have very BAD navigation so I guess to many colors and bad navigation.
Jeez, we don't all have great eyesight, I recently moved to using Opera exclusively which makes it a bit easier but goddammit, it aint hard!
Also, sites designed with fixed widths, usually by incompentent webmasters who have a high rez monitor but don't realize that most people still use 800x600
...oooooh, now I'm rollin'
What about flashy bells and whistles navigation, hey pal, if I can't work out:
...and I still see "Optimized for" rubbish everywhere: Get a grip, Optimize for the web you muppets!
...gotta go wipe the froth from my mouth....
Nick
> Anything following my mouse.
> Interfaces that take control of my screen.
> and "live help" option; but when you click, no one shows up?
Navigation systems that change position from page to page - in fact any navigation that isn't obvious.
Come on Guys, if I wanted a challenge, I'd buy a kids puzzle book.
..and 'optimised for Internet Explorer X' type comments - it just makes it seem like the designers couldn't be bothered to finish the job.
Also I come across sites all the time that leave code on the actual page. Are you kidding, how can you not see that you left a big chunk of code exposed.
GOOGLE, YOU BLEW IT HERE! The link turns yellow on hover and I can't read it anymore!
That's because yellow is the default hover color in many browsers and Google just let's it alone. But just as you would rarely let the background color, font or font color stay at default, you should also declare a hover effect that helps your visitors.
Basically, anything that annoys me, scares me, traps me, or confuses me is reason for me to backspace my way out in a hurry.
I do however have a new banner to detest
The one that tells me my security is at risk. click here to fix..that does my head in :)
Yes! Any site that you can't hit the back button on... I've sent a dozen or so scathing emails to sites that do this: Way to go, trap me and expect me to like you!
Morons!
Nick
2. Sites that tell me I can't use them without "upgrading" to Netscape or IE. If you support IE 5 you can support Opera, if you understood enough about browsers to ditch the pathetic excuse for a browser sniffer script you've got... but in the meantime I'll take my business elsewhere.
3. Sites that don't work on a Macintosh... WHY? What bizarre non-standard coding are you using that would actually prevent a Mac version browser from successfully rendering your site? Last I checked, whenever I built a basically standards-compliant site on my Mac, it worked fine in Windows, and 90%+ of the sites I visit have no Mac problems... I'll take my business elsewhere, and probably will never bother to come back and see if it's fixed.
4. US vendors who won't ship to Alaska (or Hawaii, usually). You've never heard of the US Postal Service? They DO deliver mail here, and if I'm really in a pinch I'll happily pay the extra for UPS 2nd Day Air... so give me one good reason why, if I'm willing to pay the extra shipping cost, you won't send a package to me? It won't cause you any extra hassle or expense. You've given me no choice but to... yep, you guessed it... take my business elsewhere.
And, of course,
Assuming that I'm American.
Tons of popups
/Ove
Annoying anti-right click scripts - they can't stop people getting to the source but what they do stop is real visitors from browsing the site as they want to - I often want to read page X but open page Y in a new window to see if it is any better, or maybe even open two pages at the same time to compare products.
Hmm I guess that last bit also applies to certain flash sites...
<< If I can't browse your site in a way thats useful to me I will find info/shop elsewhere >>
On Bretts comments about non-underlined links I would have to disagree - they are very easy for someone to use provided they are a suitably eye-catching link-esque colour (blue/red etc) which isn't re-used elsewhere within the site for non-links.
The problems come when they are the same colour as the text without an underline, this ends up with the visitor having to hover over them just to check if they are a link!
- Tony
I pulled it up in IE but couldnt stand it so I pulled up Opera and it displayed fine. So whats so hard about making it work in mozilla???
A related question. My software runs fine on Windows 2000, but doesn't run on ME or 98. Why didn't the software designer make the latest software backwards compatible? And how come there aren't Linux versions or Mac versions of everything?
The concept of "take my business elsewhere" is not a good enough reason to worry about pleasing every user with every browser ever created. There are plenty of examples in the non-computer world where exclusion works.
Now, don't get me wrong, I believe in standards and compatibility, but I think it can too far in the other direction as well. We should strive to be standard compliant, but if I require a certain functionality in my software, the user, if they want to use it, has to meet me half way and have the proper tools.
You can't play DVDs in your VCR. It's a new technology.
And if I come to your site with a reasonably recent version of Opera, Netscape, Mozilla, IE, or any other browser capable of rendering HTML4 and CSS1, I have brought with me the proper tools to navigate any well-designed standards compliant site on Mac or Windows platforms... (probably *nix too, but I've never used a *nix desktop system so I don't know)
If you add extra wingdings that prevent me from using one of those browsers, you're the one at fault, IMO. It would be like selling a DVD that only played on Sony DVD players. I've got a DVD player, but it isn't a Sony. I should still be able to watch your DVD.
Bars often prominently display signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," but I'd consider it a bit silly if they refused to serve anyone under 5' 9" tall because of the height of the barstools, or refused service to redheads because their hair looked bad under the bar lighting.
Likewise, if your site uses bleeding edge or proprietary coding that prevents people with a non-Windows computer or a non-IE browser from using your site, you are losing business. Which is your right, I suppose, but it's silly and unnecessary. ;)
My software runs fine on Windows 2000, but doesn't run on ME or 98.Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Win2K actually an NT platform? And ME isn't? In which case, it's not a backwards compatibility issue, it's a cross-platform compatibility issue.
However there is one thing way too prevalent right now: lack of contrast. There are too many websites out there with poor colour choice, often to the extent that I need to highlight text to read it. I can understand the mistake on a personal pages but no professional designer should be using dark beige on beige. I think some of it is fashion, I see muted colours all over the place right now.
What's wrong with black text on white anyway?
... provided they are a suitably eye-catching link-esque colour (blue/red etc) which isn't re-used elsewhere within the site for non-links.
Not much use if you're colour blind. I can't remember the exact numbers but this is a reasonably high proportion of people. Links need something more than colour alone to define them. Bolding can work as long as it's never used anywhere else on the site. Personally I dislike underlined non-link text more though.
And my last pet peeve - stupidly long alt tags and no height-width attributes to confine them. I'm occasionally forced to surf with the images turned off because my connection sucks and it always surprises me how many websites have the design totally screwed up by pointless alt tags.
Not much use if you're colour blind. I can't remember the exact numbers but this is a reasonably high proportion of people. Links need something more than colour alone to define them. Bolding can work as long as it's never used anywhere else on the site.
If you really were colour blind surely you'd have a scheme to make browsing the web as painless as possible given that a large percentage of the sites you visit would be difficult to navigate with a colour deficiency?
Also just because the *default* colour scheme of a website may not be suitable, what's to stop the site offering alternate choices of style-sheet?
If memory serves allowing users to choose from multiple style-sheets when they are available is something all browsers are supposed to do if they adhere to the W3C guidelines.
- Tony
If you foolishly tried to click the "close" cross, you got the advert. Basically you had to wait about 40 seconds for it to go away!
This was especially bad as it covered 2 of my listings and was of a flying Pig.
The marketing department that though that this was a good way to spend their budget should be tickled until the give in.
A wee aside: Does anybody out there have to include things in their sites that they hate because their boss/client insists? What makes you feel most ashamed?
Or you get javascript that doesn't work, blank pages - why do images on Microsoft's page not show up in Opera?
I've also seen layers with text in them on top of other layers, so you can't read it, or click on it if it's a link!
Pop-under windows are awful. Thank heaven's for Mozilla, where we can turn them off.
Not much use if you're colour blind. I can't remember the exact numbers but this is a reasonably high proportion of people.Colour blindness does not result in black-and-white vision. The most common form of colour blindess is red-green, which means that both red and green look the same -- probably a sort of brownish-orangey yuck. That's about 10% of the male population, less for women. And the degree of colour blindess varies from individual to individual.
Easy solution: put all your regular links in easily identifiable navigation bars. Avoid inline links, but where they do occur repeat them all together in a panel labelled "Further information" or "See also" or something similar.
