| |
Badly designed websites |
| |
ad (20:03 20/5/2009)
andypoole (20:39 20/5/2009)
filecore (21:45 20/5/2009)
ad (23:25 20/5/2009)
SimonC (10:29 28/5/2009)
VincceH (11:49 28/5/2009)
filecore (11:52 28/5/2009)
ad (22:45 28/5/2009)
bhtooefr (21:58 20/5/2009)
VincceH (13:47 21/5/2009)
flibble (11:55 22/5/2009)
flibble (12:03 22/5/2009)
filecore (12:04 22/5/2009)
|
| |
|
Andrew Duffell |
Message #110098, posted by ad at 20:03, 20/5/2009 |
Posts: 3262
|
I have a teaching interview on Friday, and I'm teaching a lesson on 'Good Web Design'. For this I am going to get the kids to identify what's bad about some websites I will provide them with.
Does anyone have any examples of (fairly obvious) bad web design?
http://www.triadforensics.com/ is the first example I've found. |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #110099, posted by andypoole at 20:39, 20/5/2009, in reply to message #110098 |
Posts: 5558
|
Does anyone have any examples of (fairly obvious) bad web design? http://www.riscos.com/ ? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #110100, posted by filecore at 21:45, 20/5/2009, in reply to message #110099 |
Posts: 3867
|
Do you mean bad aesthetics, horrid layout circa 1997, or actual bad coding regardless of aesthetic? Browser-specific functionality? Horrid JS hacks? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Eric Rucker |
Message #110101, posted by bhtooefr at 21:58, 20/5/2009, in reply to message #110099 |
Member
Posts: 337
|
I think that one takes the cake, purely because the layout depends on MS fonts that aren't on the product that they sell, and I somehow doubt they tested it in NetSurf.
(It's possible, if they tested it on a Linux box with the MS fonts pack installed, but unlikely.) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Duffell |
Message #110105, posted by ad at 23:25, 20/5/2009, in reply to message #110100 |
Posts: 3262
|
Do you mean bad aesthetics, horrid layout circa 1997, or actual bad coding regardless of aesthetic? Browser-specific functionality? Horrid JS hacks? Bad aesthetics... no white space, flashing images etc... etc... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #110109, posted by VincceH at 13:47, 21/5/2009, in reply to message #110098 |
 Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
Does anyone have any examples of (fairly obvious) bad web design? http://www.rcomp.co.uk ?
Possibly not the sort of thing you really meant, given that my beef with RComp's website is largely that it seems to me to be a sprawling mess, spreading across more than one actual domain (which might seem perfectly logical in its layout to RComp). Other dislikes I have are the use of frames and inconsistent designs to the pages within those frames. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #110117, posted by flibble at 11:55, 22/5/2009, in reply to message #110109 |
Posts: 891
|
http://www.webwizz.net/
Click the magic hat to enter
Oh they even offer web design services...
Surely it has to be a spoof? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #110118, posted by flibble at 12:03, 22/5/2009, in reply to message #110117 |
Posts: 891
|
Ack, just saw the interview date, probably to late now  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #110119, posted by filecore at 12:04, 22/5/2009, in reply to message #110117 |
Posts: 3867
|
http://www.webwizz.net/ ALL FOR LESS THAN £18 PER WEEK, INCLUDING VAT! Dear god. Then again, the source says it was generated by Adobe PageMill 3.0, which was released back in 1999...
What a price though! That's less than £1000/year, for a website and domain! I'm beginning to think I must not be getting good service, since I'm only paying less than £1 per month for my current hosting... oh, wait:
The cost of the Platinum Service is just £27.99 per week including VAT
Feedback Form (cgi-bin) £25 set-up fee
Extra Web Space £1.99 per 20Mb per week Still, that's less than £2000. Not bad.
[Edited by filecore at 12:11, 22/5/2009] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Challands |
Message #110145, posted by SimonC at 10:29, 28/5/2009, in reply to message #110100 |
 Right on, Commander!
Posts: 398
|
Do you mean bad aesthetics, horrid layout circa 1997, or actual bad coding regardless of aesthetic? Browser-specific functionality? Horrid JS hacks? Circa 1997 layout? Hope that isn't a reference to my Elite site! The old-fashioned, not really changed since I first made it and didn't really know what I was doing then layout is quite deliberate, thank you! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #110147, posted by VincceH at 11:49, 28/5/2009, in reply to message #110145 |
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
Circa 1997 layout? Hope that isn't a reference to my Elite site! The old-fashioned, not really changed since I first made it and didn't really know what I was doing then layout is quite deliberate, thank you! Don't worry - I think he's just got a thing about criticising websites by blaming them on 1997. Or something. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #110148, posted by filecore at 11:52, 28/5/2009, in reply to message #110145 |
Posts: 3867
|
Circa 1997 layout? Hope that isn't a reference to my Elite site! The old-fashioned, not really changed since I first made it and didn't really know what I was doing then layout is quite deliberate, thank you! To be fair, my own Iron Lord site falls quite happily into the rest of those categories I mentioned  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Duffell |
Message #110149, posted by ad at 22:45, 28/5/2009, in reply to message #110148 |
Posts: 3262
|
Thanks for the sites people.
I didn't get the job. :-(
It was between me and one other guy in the end, and they chose him because he had "more experience". :-|
Edit: Although I have since used a similar lesson at another school, and got the job. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
