, from oldest to newest:
My current top pet peeve (after the non-linked URL) is sites that use stylesheets to specify a font size in pixels. I call this the British newspaper style, since those sites always do this.
It disables the View, Text Size option in Internet Explorer, and makes text feel like the fine print to anyone not using 800x600.
Being a web designer (and yes, I've used this method, but not for body text), I understand the motivation, but many of these designs work without this level of control.
(If you're a web designer, and you really think you have that level of control, pull up Internet Explorer, click on Tools, Internet Options, the Accessibility button, and pick Ignore font sizes specified on web pages, and watch what happens.)
I'm not sure what category you'd put this under? Maybe a heuristic: User control and freedom?
Posted by Chad Lundgren @ 08/01/2001 04:16 PM pst
~~~
personally i think teeny type could almost be a category of its own...
Posted by Christina @ 08/01/2001 05:00 PM pst
~~~
Not sure how one would track this, but don't forget to save some room for clients who refuse to follow even the clearest & most basic process.
Example me, you say?
Fine. it's 8.59 PM. You've been in this meeting since 6.00, trying to lock in the final site map so you can start to get some template schematics out.
Client representative hands across the table a list of 19 new content modules that must be accounted for. "Oh, I thought you knew: we have to include these, too."
This, mind you, after they've had the provisional site map for a week, and three hours into a meeting you hoped and prayed was about to wrap.
Sigh.
Posted by Adam @ 08/01/2001 08:02 PM pst
~~~
"click here" or "more" as links.
Drives me up the wall. You would think we would know better by now....
Posted by ralph @ 08/01/2001 08:47 PM pst
~~~
Websites that "work best" in a certain resolution, with a certain browser, at a certain connection speed. And if you don't meet their criteria, they tell you to go away.
And to make it even worse, a good percentage of sites that do this also end up telling people they don't meet the requirements even if they do, because of botched Javascript sniffer code.
Posted by charles @ 08/01/2001 09:22 PM pst
~~~
1. No alt tags - grr!
2. Incorrectly named alt tags - grr, grr!
3. "Untitled Document" as the page title.
Posted by Paul Nattress @ 08/02/2001 01:05 AM pst
~~~
You could structure these as anti-patterns (basically a design pattern of something that DOESN'T work, see http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AntiPatterns) so the reader understands the context of what the intention was, why it's a bad practice, and how to do it right.
badpractices.com is a huge task! Have you considered limiting the scope, to say, usability but not coding practices?
Posted by Victor @ 08/02/2001 07:30 AM pst
~~~
it's actually my plot to built the thing in ultraboard, so that the burden is on the submitters, and I act more as a moderator....
but you do suggest some good metacategories: bad design, bad usability, bad coding, bad client, bad vendor...
Posted by christina @ 08/02/2001 07:51 AM pst
~~~
I certainly have a collection of pet peeves to contribute (complete with screenshots), but I would personally find goodpractices.com more helpful. I think that as a group we IA/Usability types are far too critical; it's much easier to critique than to praise (let alone create), and we could all do with fewer "grr"s and more "nice job"s.
Posted by Nadav @ 08/02/2001 10:16 AM pst
~~~
for inspiration,
you might wanna check out Creative Good's E-commerce best and worst practices on ZDNet.
http://www.zdnet.com/ecommerce/filters/sublanding/0,10385,6006111,00.html
best: http://www.zdnet.com/ecommerce/stories/evaluations/0,10524,2298732,00.html
worst: http://www.zdnet.com/ecommerce/stories/evaluations/0,10524,2298718,00.html
And, of course, there's the "old school:"
interface hall of shame
http://www.iarchitect.com/mshame.htm
bad human factors designs
http://www.baddesigns.com/
Posted by ct @ 08/02/2001 12:04 PM pst
~~~
Halp!!
Posted by ilovedallas @ 08/03/2001 03:34 PM pst
~~~
If you release a URL as part of a mailer or an ad, maybe the website should payoff that collateral in some small way.Example one: Sony has covered Montgomery station with ads for a new Vaio laptop, the R505. When you go the page in the ads, sony.com/vaio/ there is no immediate link between the print ad and the website. Oh, there's an "ad" in the lower right corner: "now save $500 on select R505 notebooks," but that's the only visible connexion.Example two: I just got my bill from SprintPCS. They announced a new, simplified invoice. However, to switch to that new format, I have to go to the Sprint site and change some preference in my customer information. Fine. Following the steps listed in the mailer, I log on, click on "My Services" and when the page loads, look for "Bill Type". Although there are a plethora of services that I can add to my service (for which Sprint will be me), there's nothing even vaguely reminiscent of "Bill Type". You could also include the fact that using their site is the only way of changing this preference. A lot of companies are pushing customers to websites that are not equipped to meet those customer's needs.
Posted by David @ 08/03/2001 06:40 PM pst
~~~
This discussion inspired me to finish the FTSE 100 Usability Awards
Posted by tom smith @ 08/05/2001 12:03 PM pst
~~~
hey nadav--
I'm quite with you, I do think bestpractices are important to concentrate on, but goodpractices.com is taken *and* I think people enjoy putting up offenders and a badpractices.com will attract more activity. Also, i'd like to suggest a format for it that will cause people who put up offenders to offer up solutions on how it could have been a good practice instead, rather than just griping for giggles. (gripingforgiggles.com might have been fun also!)
Posted by christina @ 08/06/2001 07:59 AM pst
~~~
speaking of partner in crime, jenifer has posted a teensy survey that I hope you will be kind enough to take. 7 questions! easy!
Posted by Christina @ 08/06/2001 11:24 AM pst
~~~
The thing is, Zeldman (who I almost always agree with) advocates using pixels (and provides some good rationalization for doing do).
http://www.alistapart.com/stories/fear4/
And he talks at lots of conferences, so a lot of designers hear him and do what he says.
Posted by martha @ 08/07/2001 02:25 PM pst
~~~
Zeldman and I fought about this just this friday, at web design 01, and I still don't agree that pixels are the way to go. However, Shawn convinced him he was making his very valable information unavailable to people who could use it, and he said he would look at removing the size definition altogether. he made the very fine point that if he did allow his page to becoem "ugly" by increasign the size, many designers would not longer listen to him. We three discussed the use of a "large type version" which i hope he will implement. i appreciate it hugely on IHT.
Posted by christina @ 08/07/2001 03:59 PM pst
~~~
Glad to hear it. Shawn's site doesn't allow font to resize either, though :)
As much as I like Zeldman and what he has to say, I don't think his site's font size is what makes web designers listen to him - it's his excellent writing style, laid-back manner of presenting at conferences, and valuable information.
Posted by martha @ 08/08/2001 10:15 AM pst
~~~
how bout a complete category dedicated to everything jacob says. I have idiotic stakeholders all over me telling me how to do my job on a bad rainy day just because they read about what jake had to say! Phew... sorry bout that.
Posted by Alainswine @ 08/31/2001 01:18 PM pst
~~~
i need help getting an address for a cell phone number. It will be worth your time$$$$.
Posted by tony draper @ 09/14/2001 10:46 AM pst
~~~
