Is anyone else annoyed by webpage design Nazis?

[DaveJ]

Tonight I was trying to think of a layout and find a background image for my webpage and came across this site:

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com

Not only does this guy have nothing better to do than to cut people down all day (I'm doing it for just a few minutes it seems), but apparently he's making a profit from it with his book and people like me stumbling upon this site (and creating links to it).

What bothers me is that the sites he describes as bad are the ones that actually have some functionality besides words on a page.

For instance this one (http://www.iit.edu/arch) utilizes web technology that he could never begin to fathom. No, it's not perfect. I'm sure the student who made it has much better things to do. But it is something representing progress.

All he appears to know is plain HTML, and he uses it to cut down people who try to do more.

According to these design Nazis, it always has to be a white background, high contrast text, plain HTML is fine. In fact, put a book or magazine in front of the monitor. That would be fine by him as he apparently doesn't know the difference.

Believe me, I can put words on a page. If all I wanted was a page with a bunch of text on it, I could do that in 20 minutes.

[RoyGBiv]

1. Well, yes and no ...

I see what you're saying, and I don't find a lot of utility in having a web page dedicated to doing little but insulting other web pages, but then I don't see a lot of utility in most web sites that pop up here and there. Without having spent a great deal of time at that site, I did see enough of what is the focus of complaint to find some sympathy with it.

I mean, take this:

http://www.havenworks.com/

That's awful. Simply awful. It renders horribly. It's a mess. The colors hurt. I'm not even really sure what the point is other than it seems to have some political focus. If I were looking for something and came across that site, I'd rapidly go elsewhere.

As for colored backgrounds:

http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~mbbjsj/index.htm

No.

Yes, I like a little color too, but sometimes white is better. With text, it's about readability. While designing a site for a friend who is teaching a class next semester, I had to have a conversation with her about this. What she wanted *looked* nice, but when I asked, "Do you know if any of your students are color blind?" she had to pause. The colors she wanted would have made the site unreadable to someone who was. So, we went with black on white with splashes of color elsewhere to keep it from being boring.

A lot of what draws complaint are sites like this:

http://www.brillpublications.com/

First, its functionality *requires* javascript. For anything other than video or other desired content that is based on technology that requires javascript just to be displayed, I refuse to visit sites that do this. In my view, it's rude.

Yes, it's creative. It took a lot of work and shows a good level of skill in the designer. But, for its apparent purpose, it's quite annoying. (I say "apparent" because I'm not quite sure what the purpose is, which is a common complaint about creative websites like this. They look cool but are confusing or require a time investment just to figure them out.) I could describe a number of things that seem functional but which are actually just cute and lose their novelty immediately, especially if you're looking for something. As an example, take "the lift" (creative -- yes, functional -- no) to The Issue. First, you have to wait ... and wait, as it actually simulates an elevator ride. Second, when you get to the floor, you see this guy and some questionable navigation choices that could easily be missed. And, if you pass your pointer over that guy's image while moving it around to get from here to there, you get to hear him say, "C'mon. We gotta get a paper out ..." over and over again. (Oh, and I've realized as I've been writing this that there's an annoying hum in the background that seems to be intended to simulate the hum of overhead lighting with a ballast that's about to go out.)

No thanks.

Where some of this comes from is the pseudo-movement not too many years ago to make a web surfing experience somewhat "lifelike." It's absurd in many contexts. Computers are better for storing and organizing information that would have been held in file cabinets without computers in part *because* you don't have to look through those file cabinets. But some geniuses thought they would put their coding skills to "good" use and create web-based simulations of looking through file cabinets. That's what the above site reminds me of. Think of that 90's Michael Douglas movie Disclosure wherein one of the hot technologies Douglas's company was creating was a virtual reality filing system. You put on a glove and a headset and wandered around through a simulated file storage room. Part of the plot turned on how much time and effort it took to do this ... rather than just key in a simple search term or open up an organization tree on a desktop. Looked cool. Practically speaking, it was plain silly.

OnEdit: A part of the original business plan of Second Life was based on this. Your SL personna could "go shopping" by visiting virtual stores, walk around in those stores, and find items to purchase. The idea was that some people don't do online shopping because they like the "browsing" experience of a storefront. What this idea failed to notice was that in reality you're still just sitting in a chair, and after one time doing this, it's just obnoxious and actually makes the shopping experience more difficult than *either* more traditional online shopping or getting out and driving to the store. I don't know where SL is with this now, but the last I read, it was an idea that was failing miserably.

What I'm saying is, that sort of thing could be put to a good purpose, but this purpose isn't it. I'm not sure if that's entirely what the "webpages that suck" guy is trying to say, but if it is, he has a point. To offer a mild analogy, I can create killer spreadsheets that do all sorts of nifty things with formatting and organization of data. But, if you just want a grocery list in columns, why would you need that?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

7. Havenworks...

Is a fine example of what happens when you give an untreated schixoprenic or schizo-affective person the "gift" of Frontpage.

No, really. Really.

Gah.

[RoyGBiv]

15. Yeah, a gift ...

Sorta like giving a 6 year-old a set of drums.

With extra cymbals.

And an amplification kit.

[RoyGBiv]

2. Update ...

I want to add that I don't consider myself a design Nazi, but I went through all 20 of his contenders, and with one exception, I pretty much agree with the assessment. (Yes, I'm bored.)

A lot of the complaint is about so-called Flash sites, which I covered partly above in my comments about requiring javascript. Some of it is cute. Some of it is really good in and of itself. Little of it adds anything to the site, and much of it actually makes site navigation more complicated. I should have added that use of Flash for site navigation prevents those who are visually impaired from using those sites at all without some care being taken to allow browsers an alternative. This was a big deal back when people first started using graphical navigation links. You always, always, always provided text links (usually along the bottom) and alt-text for the graphical links so that those who rely on speech synthesis and those who browse with graphics turned off (like many of those on slow dialups) can still navigate your site.

The one exception to my agreement with his complaints is the IKEA site. I could do without the noise of the landing page, but it does make good use of Flash in its overall design. It still violates the unwritten rule of being accessible to those who don't navigate with broadband or a fully working set of eyes...

... and those, like me, who occasionally tool around with Lynx when I'm only looking for bits of information and specifically want to avoid all the eye candy. (I still think it's cool that Google accounts for this. It's one of the reasons I first started using it.) But, in IKEA's defense, I wouldn't be shopping for furniture with Lynx.

I'll also note that some of the Flash on these sites sits on top of an otherwise very poorly design website as a whole. Find the link to American tours. Even if the Flash navigation weren't a problem (and it is ... it could initiate a seizure or nausea in some people) the rest of the site is so horribly put together that I'm left wondering just how well they run their business.

One last thing: Have you ever tried visiting Nvidia's site trying to download drivers or a manual on a newly built computer that doesn't already have video drivers or a Flash player installed? It's *really* annoying, especially if you run Linux. Flash and javascript is the problem there as well.

[DaveJ]

3. I guess I'm just sort of bullheaded

I don't mind picking on big companies that have every resource a their disposal and still design horrible sites. Yes I noticed that about NVidia's site, although I appreciate their attempt to auto-detect the video card, if that even works. I also do not like it when dell, ibm, etc., all try to force you to indicate whether you are with a small, medium, or large company before getting to a drivers download page. And it's annoying anywhere you want to download something it seems you have to click on some control about 8 times before you get to the file.

I'm more interested in functionality. This guy does not understand that. I'm sure he will try to convince people that he does, but he doesn't.

The sites I glanced at all seemed to be done by individuals who did not deserve the criticism.

It bothers me that criticizing someone's website takes almost no effort. Someone might spend months developing something only to have some wanna be criticize it based on factors that the author finds unimportant and trivial. What they are developing is not just words on a page, that's what critics do, but products that go beyond that.

Critics like that destroy originality. It's because of them that all websites look exactly the same. I love seeing sites with different colored backgrounds and text.

One thing I love about MySpace is that they facilitate anarchy on their pages. It's probably why MySpace is still ahead of all their competitors including Facebook. (at least that's my guess)

Oh well, I just felt like complaining. I doubt it will get any better. The way things are going in a few years all websites will just be 2 colors, and we can go back to monochrome monitors making life much easier for people like him to understand.

[RoyGBiv]

4. I like originality ...

If I may blow my own horn for a few moments, my one claim to something approaching fame was that a site I developed back in, oh, '96 or so was listed in a book called something like _The 100 Top Civil War Web Sites_ around the turn of the century. It was also shown on the History Channel and was listed by the Library of Congress. I was quite proud, especially so because it had originally just been a little project that resulted from an online argument, and at the time a lot of commercial sites or sites funded by academic institutions had cropped up that one would think would do what I did better. There were literally thousands of Civil War themed websites at the time, some of them built by very knowledgeable and talented individuals. As a result of the book being published, I was interviewed by a guy who wrote website reviews for a Civil War magazine. He wanted to know my design philosophy.

There were a couple of reasons for my site being included, the first of which it was original for its time. It focused on a single individual and collected documentation about his life and especially about a controversy. It offered some editorial commentary, but mostly it was a collection of documents I *transcribed myself* (not fun) to allow others to research for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Several sites popped up afterward based on the same theme, two of which are now considered *the* online sources for information about those individuals. Both site developers were in frequent contact with me while they built their sites, and one told me she was inspired to do what she was doing because of mine.

The other reason for its inclusion in the book was it looked nice and was easy to navigate. At the time the typical "information" site had a bunch of links all in a row, perhaps with some formatting to make it look like an outline, but mostly it was just there. Much of it was poorly organized. Some of it did look good the way it was put together, but it wasn't very imaginative. Other sites were horrible. A lot of people used flags for backgrounds, which made reading text a painful experience, or they used a popular old-parchment type of background that wasn't a great deal better. I did something different while maintaining the black text on a white background convention. Using just straight (standards compliant) HTML (later some CSS) and some self-created graphics, some tables, and a little imagination, I put it all together so that it was easy to navigate, looked visually interesting, and provided the alternative of straight text to those who wanted that. All the really interesting visuals were on the periphery. They were accents to the room, so to speak, but didn't dominate it. The key factor of all of it was ease of use, and a dominating visual style can detract from that. I wanted people to be able to get the information they wanted without having to figure out how to use the website, but I also wanted the "oh this looks nice" reaction. (One of the website's on that guy's list has a TUTORIAL on navigating the website. It gets the "it looks nice" reaction, but it also creates the "why the hell should I waste time on a *tutorial* to navigate a website?" frustration.)

The point, here, is that the design philosophy the reviewer wanted to know about involved both content and design. Without balancing those elements, a website doesn't do what it needs to do.

Today, the site needs a lot of work and is uninteresting by modern standards, but it's still there, and people still access it. (I "donated" it to a historical preservation organization, and they kinda screwed it up. I'm still nominally a webmaster for it, but I haven't worked up the gumption to put the work into it that it needs to fix it all.) No one has even tried to do what I did with that particular subject any better. (Well, some stole some of my work and tried to profit from it, but I tend to go on a hunt for these people every few months and smack them down.) So, maybe someday ...

Anyway ...

I'm not putting down originality, and I agree that I get annoyed by people who criticize just for the sake of being critical. (I think this guy is a little bit too in love with what he perceives as his wit.) But his abrasiveness is based on a kernel of truth. Some of this stuff people do to make sites look cool also makes the site annoying for those who visit it. If what you want is to be visually stunning without thinking about functionality, fine, but don't expect people to appreciate it for very long. The stunning visuals are good for one hit unless the visuals are the only purpose. Repeat visits require something else.

[DaveJ]

11. Congratulations, you aren't blowing your own horn!

Since this was back in '96 one could say you helped lay the foundation for online historical record keeping.

I hope you have planned a way for your site to be maintained in the years ahead. Valuable information like that should not be allowed to just disappear. I've been learning more about new technologies -- the software field is always about learning new technologies. I've been studying the latest .Net developments including their use of web services which can play a role in maintaining valuable information.

As a nerd, geek, whatever I am, I don't feel I will ever directly get credit for anything I do. I could spend years learning a new internet technology, then show it online, where all anyone may see is a couple buttons, and then get bashed by some idiot because my font size was off.

So, it's like ridiculing a frame maker for the painting that's in it.

[RoyGBiv]

14. Planning, etc ...

My "donating" the site to a historical organization was a part of that planning. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out as well as I'd hoped. Giving it a stable URL is the one thing it has done. I had to move it twice, the first time from the server on which it was originally located (just my local ISP's web space) when it went belly-up, then from some donated server space that I eventually discovered was linked to ... well, several people of questionable character. (Long story, that.)

The current people who own the URL probably won't shut down within my lifetime anyway.

I liked my 15 minutes of "fame," I suppose, but it got tiring, especially since the subject was/is controversial (more so ten years ago than today). I use the site sometimes to show what kind of things I can do when someone comes along that might actually pay me for work or when it might be needed on a resume. But I've removed any linkage to me as an individual. Just keeping up with the e-mail was a full-time job, and I couldn't do it any longer and do anything else. I feel a bit bad about that because I got to do some cool things and met some great people, including a couple of kids in junior high who were really interested in learning, as opposed to the "will you do my homework for me" kids. I introduced one of them to a big name historian who lent his name to a project she was doing for a school fair, and she was over the moon about it, as were her parents. Things like that stay with me more than the design, coding, etc. or getting much in the way of credit. That is, I'll remember that kid long after the page I had in a dusty old book fades into nothing.

[charlie]

5. Eh, he's a relic

His moment crested 10 years ago. The web population was much smaller then and more importantly, the ratio of web "designers" to ordinary surfers was much greater, so he had a ready audience for that kind of snark (if you thought programmers were bad about arguing over the One Right Thing, mid-nineties HTML wranglers were far more insufferable). Ironically, Flanders' own site was pretty suckass. He took endless crap about it and for whatever reason, resisted fixing it for years. This is the first time I've seen the changed design, Version 2.0. Two iterations in 13 years, somebody really couldn't be bothered to pick up the dogshit in their own backyard.

I agree that picking on Some Guy With a Webpage is pointlessly mean, which always belied Flanders' purported aim to be a lo-rent Jakob Nielsen. He's trading in ridicule, not guidance. However, everyone else is fair game. A lot of sites deserve it, and a whole lot of them really need to listen to criticism. Or ridicule. People who fussed about usability at least used to be heeded grudgingly, but nowadays it seems they're ignored altogether. Which sucks.

[DaveJ]

9. Why do you think people who fuss about usability are ignored?

It seems to me their observations a biblical among web designers. When it gets to the corporate level I think the problem is the lack on interdepartmental coopration, where corporate politics get higher priority. But that's not to say these boring web design concepts are ignored.

I just am surprised at the amount of conformity on the web where people can do things in so many different ways, but nevertheless all decide to conform. It really says something about human nature I guess.

Again, MySpace is one rare exception to the rule. I have no interest in the company, don't know if they are left or right, but as a result of letting people so whatever they want on it, people are able to express themselves like noplace else.

If I'm interested in a product, or a person who created a site, or the content, I really don't care what colors are on the page or about any web design standards. Well, actually I do care -- the more colorful the better.

[Warpy]

6. I got their book oh, must be eight or so years ago

when I was fiddling around with HTML and finding out I wasn't very good at it. I thought a lot of their points were great and some of the pages were hilariously awful.

My pet peeve and one they don't address are the sites of some big megacorporations, especially news sites, that has you click on a story, get to the first paragraph and have to click next to get to the next paragraph and so on and so forth, just so they can stack new ads on every web page.

Those web pages SUCK. I'd rather have those hideous purple script on black pages with everything there. At least highlighting works on those.

[DaveJ]

8. That the impression I got after just reading a few sentences on his site

Why isn't he going after the big guys?

They're the ones with the resources to create super extraordinary sites, not like the individuals who this guy likes to pick on.

I could go on and on about the bill payment sites for big companies like ATT, my cell phone provider, and my gas and electric company. But I shouldn't go into details here, but trust me they are horrible. Much worse than anyone individual with an Paypal store.

I just think it's totally repugnant to pick on little guys who want to accomplish things, while tip toeing around the big guys.

It's just a character trait that really gets on my nerves.

[Warpy]

10. He did go after Microshaft, they're big guys

and I have to agree with him that the pale blue text on white and the white text on pale blue is AWFUL.

I also agree with him about "mystery meat" navigation. I HATE that. Yes, the graphics are nice as hell, but PLEASE supply a line of text links at the bottom of the page so I know what the hell I'm supposed to do next.

[DaveJ]

12. Of course, MS was run by a nerd.

Nerds get picked on so if one corporation would be a target it would certainly be Microsoft.

That's what bullies do, pick on nerds. I'd like to see him go after my gas company or AT&T.

By corporate standards, I can believe what the MS website homepage looks like now. It is totally messed up in their own IE8 Beta. In Firefox, I'm not sure what they are trying to accomplish web design wise. Apparently not much....

But the thing is, it works. The functionality of MS far surpasses any other. That's all I care about because apparently I'm just a nerd too.

[RoyGBiv]

13. Colorful, unique, and user-friendly ...

Some of the sites listed here are awesome, built by people with skills and imagination and an understanding also of what makes a site interesting and usable to those who visit.

I ran across this on Digg tonight strangely enough ...

http://abduzeedo.com/web-design-illustration

And the ones that require Flash *make sense* because of the content they deliver.