Interesting list

A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a list
of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.

1. Pop Ups
2. Extra Software Needed to View Site
3. Dead Links
4. Registration Required
5. Slow Pages
6. Out of date Content
7. Bad Navigation
8. No Contact Information
9. No Decent Site Search Tool
10. Disabled "Back" Button

His site is worth a visit IMO because he does include some discussion
regarding each item which I did not include here. According to Mr. Lamm, the
list was based on "many surveys". It certainly includes several of my
greatest peeves (1, 2, 4, & 10)

Did he leave any out?

El

Re: Interesting list

On 2007-06-13, El Kabong wrote:
> A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a list
> of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.
>
> 1. Pop Ups
> 2. Extra Software Needed to View Site
> 3. Dead Links
> 4. Registration Required
> 5. Slow Pages
> 6. Out of date Content
> 7. Bad Navigation
> 8. No Contact Information
> 9. No Decent Site Search Tool
> 10. Disabled "Back" Button
>
> His site is worth a visit IMO because he does include some discussion
> regarding each item which I did not include here. According to Mr. Lamm, the
> list was based on "many surveys". It certainly includes several of my
> greatest peeves (1, 2, 4, & 10)
>
> Did he leave any out?

Links that turn the same colour as the background on hover -- like
the "File under" links on the site mentioned above.

Pages that do not adjust to the viewer's browser window -- like
the site mentioned above.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Re: Interesting list

El Kabong wrote:
> A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a list
> of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.
>
> 1. Pop Ups
> 2. Extra Software Needed to View Site
> 3. Dead Links
> 4. Registration Required
> 5. Slow Pages
> 6. Out of date Content
> 7. Bad Navigation
> 8. No Contact Information
> 9. No Decent Site Search Tool
> 10. Disabled "Back" Button
>
> His site is worth a visit IMO because he does include some discussion
> regarding each item which I did not include here. According to Mr. Lamm, the
> list was based on "many surveys". It certainly includes several of my
> greatest peeves (1, 2, 4, & 10)
>
> Did he leave any out?

Embedded music.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Interesting list

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

> On 2007-06-13, El Kabong wrote:
>> A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a list
>> of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.
>>
>> 1. Pop Ups
>> 2. Extra Software Needed to View Site
>> 3. Dead Links
>> 4. Registration Required
>> 5. Slow Pages
>> 6. Out of date Content
>> 7. Bad Navigation
>> 8. No Contact Information
>> 9. No Decent Site Search Tool
>> 10. Disabled "Back" Button
>>
>> His site is worth a visit IMO because he does include some discussion
>> regarding each item which I did not include here. According to Mr. Lamm, the
>> list was based on "many surveys". It certainly includes several of my
>> greatest peeves (1, 2, 4, & 10)
>>
>> Did he leave any out?
>
> 11. Links that turn the same colour as the background on hover -- like
> the "File under" links on the site mentioned above.
>
> 12. Pages that do not adjust to the viewer's browser window -- like
> the site mentioned above.

13. Reading a loooong page of microfonts -- like the site mentioned
above.

14. Going to a page that takes a minute to load, on a fast cable
connection (probably his server) -- like the site mentioned above.

15. Using blue text -- like ... yeah, you get it.

16. http://validator.w3.org/ = Failed validation, 34 errors ... oh wait,
we weren't talking about technical flaws, were we?

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Interesting list

On 2007-06-13, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2007-06-13, El Kabong wrote:
>> A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a list
>> of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.
>>
>> 1. Pop Ups
>> 2. Extra Software Needed to View Site
>> 3. Dead Links
>> 4. Registration Required
>> 5. Slow Pages
>> 6. Out of date Content
>> 7. Bad Navigation
>> 8. No Contact Information
>> 9. No Decent Site Search Tool
>> 10. Disabled "Back" Button
>>
>> His site is worth a visit IMO because he does include some discussion
>> regarding each item which I did not include here. According to Mr. Lamm, the
>> list was based on "many surveys". It certainly includes several of my
>> greatest peeves (1, 2, 4, & 10)
>>
>> Did he leave any out?
>
> Links that turn the same colour as the background on hover -- like
> the "File under" links on the site mentioned above.
>
> Pages that do not adjust to the viewer's browser window -- like
> the site mentioned above.

Sites that set the default text size to .62em (like the
above-mentioned site).

Sites that end lines with
(or
in this case)
breaking lines awkwardly (like the above-mentioned site):

- You have permission to publish this article electronically
in
free-only publications such as a website or an ezine as long
as
the bylines are included.


--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Re: Interesting list

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:42:53 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
wrote:

>On 2007-06-13, El Kabong wrote:
>> A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a list
>> of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.
>>
>> 1. Pop Ups
>> 2. Extra Software Needed to View Site
>> 3. Dead Links
>> 4. Registration Required
>> 5. Slow Pages
>> 6. Out of date Content
>> 7. Bad Navigation
>> 8. No Contact Information
>> 9. No Decent Site Search Tool
>> 10. Disabled "Back" Button
>>
>> His site is worth a visit IMO because he does include some discussion
>> regarding each item which I did not include here. According to Mr. Lamm, the
>> list was based on "many surveys". It certainly includes several of my
>> greatest peeves (1, 2, 4, & 10)
>>
>> Did he leave any out?
>
> Links that turn the same colour as the background on hover -- like
> the "File under" links on the site mentioned above.
>
> Pages that do not adjust to the viewer's browser window -- like
> the site mentioned above.

Tell me how would this site (above link) look on widescreen ? :)

Re: Interesting list

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2007-06-13, El Kabong wrote:
>> A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a list
>> of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.
>>
>> Did he leave any out?

11. Failure to use even basic typography or correct semantics, resulting
in a big blob of text on screen, like on the site mentioned above. It is
so tedious to read, I can't get past the first couple paragraphs.

BTW, does this guy say anything that Jakob Nielsen hasn't been saying
for about 10 years?

> Pages that do not adjust to the viewer's browser window -- like
> the site mentioned above.

It's a canned blog template, so that's not really surprising.

--
Berg

Re: Interesting list

El Kabong wrote:
> A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a list
> of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.
>
> 1. Pop Ups
> 2. Extra Software Needed to View Site
> 3. Dead Links
> 4. Registration Required
> 5. Slow Pages
> 6. Out of date Content
> 7. Bad Navigation
> 8. No Contact Information
> 9. No Decent Site Search Tool
> 10. Disabled "Back" Button
>
> His site is worth a visit IMO because he does include some discussion
> regarding each item which I did not include here. According to Mr. Lamm, the
> list was based on "many surveys". It certainly includes several of my
> greatest peeves (1, 2, 4, & 10)
>
> Did he leave any out?

One of my pet peeves is "enlarge image" links that go to images that are
barely any bigger than the original thumbnail.

Re: Interesting list

On 2007-06-13, Bergamot wrote:
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> On 2007-06-13, El Kabong wrote:
>>> A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a list
>>> of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.
>>>
>>> Did he leave any out?
>
> 11. Failure to use even basic typography or correct semantics, resulting
> in a big blob of text on screen, like on the site mentioned above. It is
> so tedious to read, I can't get past the first couple paragraphs.
>
> BTW, does this guy say anything that Jakob Nielsen hasn't been saying
> for about 10 years?
>
>> Pages that do not adjust to the viewer's browser window -- like
>> the site mentioned above.
>
> It's a canned blog template, so that's not really surprising.

True, but changing (or removing) two or three lines in the CSS file
fixes it.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Re: Interesting list

"Bergamot" wrote in message
news:5da7o7F3416u0U1@mid.individual.net...
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> On 2007-06-13, El Kabong wrote:
>>> A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a
>>> list
>>> of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.
>>>
>>> Did he leave any out?
>
> 11. Failure to use even basic typography or correct semantics, resulting
> in a big blob of text on screen, like on the site mentioned above. It is
> so tedious to read, I can't get past the first couple paragraphs.
>
> BTW, does this guy say anything that Jakob Nielsen hasn't been saying
> for about 10 years?
>
>> Pages that do not adjust to the viewer's browser window -- like
>> the site mentioned above.
>
> It's a canned blog template, so that's not really surprising.

Perhaps I should have been more critical of his presentation but I was only
interested in his content at the time. He is a retired lawyer, not a
professional Web designer as far as I know, much less a design guru.

If his design was lacking, his points were well made as were those made by
all who responded to my post.

Thanks for the responses... and the critical advice.

El

Re: Interesting list

JD wrote:
> El Kabong wrote:
>> A Web site (http://www.virtualjoefriday.com) by Charles Lamm includes a list
>> of the top ten ways to irritate your Web site's visitors.
>>
>> 1. Pop Ups
>> 2. Extra Software Needed to View Site
>> 3. Dead Links
>> 4. Registration Required
>> 5. Slow Pages
>> 6. Out of date Content
>> 7. Bad Navigation
>> 8. No Contact Information
>> 9. No Decent Site Search Tool
>> 10. Disabled "Back" Button
>>
>> His site is worth a visit IMO because he does include some discussion
>> regarding each item which I did not include here. According to Mr. Lamm, the
>> list was based on "many surveys". It certainly includes several of my
>> greatest peeves (1, 2, 4, & 10)
>>
>> Did he leave any out?
>
> One of my pet peeves is "enlarge image" links that go to images that are
> barely any bigger than the original thumbnail.

And large images that are downsized via height and width attributes so
you're still downloading 238kb for a small version, thus saving no
bandwidth (read "time") at all.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Interesting list

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:29:51 +0000, Blinky the Shark writ:

> And large images that are downsized via height and width attributes so
> you're still downloading 238kb for a small version, thus saving no
> bandwidth (read "time") at all.

I've one of the best examples of this EVER.



I emailed the guy May 4th but never heard back. It's even worse now that
he's added more pictures to the page. When I looked then, there was only
the one 8.4MB pic, shrunk down to 238 x 157 with html. Now the page is
closer to 15MB.

--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·..·¯`·-> freemont© <-·¯`·..·¯

Re: Interesting list

freemont wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:29:51 +0000, Blinky the Shark writ:
>
>> And large images that are downsized via height and width attributes so
>> you're still downloading 238kb for a small version, thus saving no
>> bandwidth (read "time") at all.
>
> I've one of the best examples of this EVER.
>
>
>
> I emailed the guy May 4th but never heard back. It's even worse now that
> he's added more pictures to the page. When I looked then, there was only
> the one 8.4MB pic, shrunk down to 238 x 157 with html. Now the page is
> closer to 15MB.

Amazing. If you look up "stupid" in the dictionary, I'll bet you'll
find his photo.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Interesting list

Blinky the Shark wrote:
> freemont wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I emailed the guy May 4th but never heard back. It's even worse now that
>> he's added more pictures to the page. When I looked then, there was only
>> the one 8.4MB pic, shrunk down to 238 x 157 with html. Now the page is
>> closer to 15MB.
>
> Amazing. If you look up "stupid" in the dictionary, I'll bet you'll
> find his photo.

Indeed -- scaled down from the original 8 megapixels.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 110 days, 22:45.]

URLs in demiblog
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/05/31/demiblog-urls/

Re: Interesting list

Toby A Inkster wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> freemont wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I emailed the guy May 4th but never heard back. It's even worse now that
>>> he's added more pictures to the page. When I looked then, there was only
>>> the one 8.4MB pic, shrunk down to 238 x 157 with html. Now the page is
>>> closer to 15MB.
>> Amazing. If you look up "stupid" in the dictionary, I'll bet you'll
>> find his photo.
>
> Indeed -- scaled down from the original 8 megapixels.
>

Touché! Good one Toby!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Interesting list

Toby A Inkster wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> freemont wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I emailed the guy May 4th but never heard back. It's even worse now that
>>> he's added more pictures to the page. When I looked then, there was only
>>> the one 8.4MB pic, shrunk down to 238 x 157 with html. Now the page is
>>> closer to 15MB.
>>
>> Amazing. If you look up "stupid" in the dictionary, I'll bet you'll
>> find his photo.
>
> Indeed -- scaled down from the original 8 megapixels.

Yes! :)


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html