website pet peeves...

[JRM]

My list of pet peeves about websites:

Websites that are not updated as needed...for instance where they are either perennially "under construction", have outdated product/price lists or fail to keep the site updated with new material...for instance, on the Naill site and in their advert in the current piper and drummer, the last year they mention is 2001? Did everyone stop using Naill chanters and winning prizes after 2001?? I've seen many sites, both piping and not piping related, where the content is out of date or filled with bad links. If you don't update the content periodically, people will stop visiting. Some if the retailers on this forum are guilty of these cardinal sins of webmastering. If your online catalogues and price lists are from 1999, 2000, 2001, etc.. allot of people won't bother calling you or visiting your site after a while. If all you have to do is change the date, then do it. If not, update it; It's good business practice.

What are your pet peeves?

[Gord™ ©1980]

Hello,

I agree! Outdated information is a huge annoyance. Why have a website as a marketing platform if it's out of date?

I can't stand those piper and drummer .gifs. and links that aren't updated.

:hatoff:
Cheers,
Gord

[Drew McPheeters]

I'd say out-of-date tops my list. I mean once a month is not that difficult to at least update a schedule, and verify the data is still correct.

Gord said it best.

It also have a personal dislike for very busy, bright colored backgrounds, flashing text.

DHTML page transitions that take a long time are irritating.

If you are going to post a huge picture (over 100k)...
Put a thumbnail instead with a link to larger picture
Make sure you are on a sufficiently faster server (e.g. not AOL).

Most tartan backgrounds are ugly to me.

[Lonny B.]

I hate Fat Java script that does nothing! Oh boy! I waited 45 seconds for a scrolling text applet! Yeah! :mad:

I also hate bright backgrounds with text you can't see, I don't understand how someone can look at that after they made it and say to themselves "hey that looks great!"

I also hate large text.. people that put whole paragraphs in large font size. I also hate all caps.

I really hate pages that make me scroll for over 15 clicks, or worse yet.. to the right!

[Todd Oberlander]

Sites with embedded sound (music) and don't have the controls available to turn it off. I shouldn't have to turn off my speakers.

A good place to find bad examples is:
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

Todd

[Drew McPheeters]

I actually have a new one I hit yesterday.

I was browsing a web site, and they had a link to another site. I clicked it, but a jscript dialog popped up for a password. I guess it was a member only site or something.

"No problem" I say, and I hit the cancel button.
Up pops a dialog with an "Invalid Passowrd" error. You dismiss that, and up pops the password dialog. No matter what you do, enter a password, dismiss, try to cancel or what, you can't get out of there. The dialogs are session modal, so you can't close the browser. Your only choice is to go into the task manager and kill all your iexplorer tasks, or to reboot the system. ARRRGGGHHHH :mad:

[Kevin M. MacHeffner Conquest]

Originally posted by Todd Oberlander:
A good place to find bad examples is:
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/
Good suggestion! :thumb: Have you read either of the two books that Vincent Flanders produced in tandem with the site (Web Pages That Suck, Son of Web Pages That Suck)? If not, they are definitely worth reading.

Cheers,
Kev

[joan fitch]

Geeeee, how many of you have designed a website? It is an incredible amount of work that involves creativity and intelligence. I think anyone who makes the effort to design and construct a site should be applauded. If I don't like a site, I just don't cruise it.

My personal site (taking a sabbatical for now to be redone ) took months of work and re-work. When it was first done, I did ask the forum members for advice,comments, critique's, and received a lot of positive feedback. I made some changes based on the great advice that definitely made improvements in areas I just didn't know how to handle.

I am in awe of this site because it works so well. I know the vast amount of time and effort it takes for Bob to do this!!!

I would also add that as a web builder, I also like feedback from anyone,so, if a site bugs you, just contact the webmaster and let them know what irritates you. I guarantee they would accept the criticism gladly.

Joan

[Todd Oberlander]

Geeeee, how many of you have designed a website? Well, I've done a few and I'm pretty sure Lonny and Kevin do it for a living...

I'm actually a hardware/network guy and only design and maintain a few websites on the side for some non-profits (pro bono).

Todd

[Vermont Piper]

I know I'm never happy with my site. I'm no html buff, so I'm pretty limited with what FrontPage can do at face value. I try, but my site isn't supposed to be fancy... it relays information. I liked your site, Joan! :p I think creativity without overdoing it is the key. Me - I hate too much Flash. I love flash as much as the last person, but when it slows down my Pentium 4 processor to a crawl, it's WAY too much!!

Jackie

[David Wm. Brown]

#1 - Embedded Bagpipe MIDI clips - I HATE these. I can't imagine anything that sounds worse!

#2 - Out-of-date webpages.

[Drew McPheeters]

Originally posted by joan fitch:
Geeeee, how many of you have designed a website? It is an incredible amount of work that involves creativity and intelligence. I think anyone who makes the effort to design and construct a site should be applauded. If I don't like a site, I just don't cruise it.
But isn't that the point of the thread. A web site is, for most bands, a promotional tool.

If the things we mention keep people away, what is the point.

And yes, I've designed several web sites, like most of the people here. None of them are likely to win any awards for best design. If someone can point something out about the design (even if it is harsh), I am glad for it.

And one criticism nearly everyone has made is not harsh. Out of date web pages are a waste of cyberspace (if a virtual resource can be wasted)!

[Jan]

Pet Peeve:

Web pages that don't let you use your "back" button. In other words, pages that when you try to navigate to the previously viewed page using the "back" button, you are given the same web page, over and over again. You're stuck! The only ways to get away from it is to use a favorites shortcut, type in the name of the site you want or start all over again by leaving the internet and coming back.

[Kevin M. MacHeffner Conquest]

A design tactic that frequently disappoints me is the disabled right-click on a site. The intent is often to deter someone from copying images or "borrowing" source code.

Right-clicking, however, allows people to jump back/forward, print, add to favorites and perform numerous other tasks. By disabling this function you are decreasing usability in your site for those who are mouse-happy (new buzzword? :p ) in their browsing. The good news is that most of these options are available through other means.

(Right-click on this screen right now to see some of the choices available to you.)

While it's being mentioned, one alternative to the issue of image theft is to use watermarks in your photos. I've not done this myself but have considered it. Bob, what are your thoughts on this issue? You do a lot of image publishing through your PPOD page.

As for "borrowing" source code, some would consider it an honor if another developer liked what they saw. In the case of scripting, perhaps adding a comment where you got the idea would be smart? :thumb:

Cheers,
Kev

[Drew McPheeters]

Originally posted by Kevin MacHeffner:
A design tactic that frequently disappoints me is the disabled right-click on a site. The intent is often to deter someone from copying images or "borrowing" source code.And that doesn't do any good against someone who really wants to see your source code. There are a number of browsers that don't support that feature, and if I really want to see the raw code, I can always use Telnet to browse.

As far as watermarks go.... they are somewhat effective, but in reality with photoshop, or just plain old cropping a picture gets rid of all but the most intrusive watermarks.

Personally, as a computer programmer, you make a large part of your living building upon the work of others. I also learned most of what I know by looking at what/how others have done something.

I do draw the line at taking something, and representing the work as yours, and not givng credit or getting permission, if able.

[Bob]

An interesting quesiton Kev, and one I have spent time considering too:

Originally posted by Kevin MacHeffner:
Bob, what are your thoughts on this issue? You do a lot of image publishing through your PPOD page.

The fact is that with today's high quality consumer level photo printers, all 'web enabled' photographers are struggling with how to deal with unauthorised image copying. The only real solutions to people 'capturing' a web image involve requiring viewers load and use special software - and this of course doesn't work.. people just won't do that.. Every other 'thing' that can be done can be overcome - quite simply in fact.. :shrug: Basically, if you see it, your cache has it..

So - my thought - just accept reality - when I post images, I know many people 'take' a copy.. I like it when I'm asked if they plan to do anything with it - just seems right, and I never say no to a request to use an image of mine for a piping magazine, newpaper, or web site..

The bottom line for me is that all this stuff is just a lot of fun for me, and I try to not have unrealistic 'hopes'. It is fun to take, and edit the photos, and pretty cool that som many people are looking at them.. But even with that large number of viewers, an example of the reality is that we have been fully 'underwhelmed' by the response to the screen saver / slide show of PPOD photos.. after so many requests, suggestions.. and I guess this is reality.. people are just copying images and creating on their own.. :shrug: