What is Digg?110 Comments
- revmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -10/+71the two biggest mistakes in web design:
#1: Myspace
#2: Craigslist
not much to it. just don't do what they did and you'll be fine. - lickmygiggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+45Amazingly, Myspace has committed EVERY ONE of those mistakes.
Wow. - wstrucke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41@revmonkey
those sites suck, but they're popular. all you prove is that sometimes it doesn't matter how crappy your site is if you have a good idea at the right moment. - armbar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29I'm glad he mentioned #3. While I follow web standards, I'm tired of other web developers trying to pitch them as something relevant to the site, rather than talking about audiences, content, and marketing. Why do you pitch web standards? You should be following them anyway. It's like a car company advertising that their vehicles all come with oil in the engines.
They should be a very short part of any conversation with a potential client. - UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27#15 - Using cheesy stock photography that dissolves your credibility.
- val8ntin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Goes to show how much people care about web design. Whether its gorgeous or dead-ugly, people want content.
/end of cliche lecture - LordofShadows, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Whats wrong with tables? And whats this "css" you speak of? And why doesnt my <blink> tag work anymore?
- Derelict267, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22This website's design isn't too pretty itself.
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Not #3.
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11In case you don't know, he intended it that way
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/whyitsucks.html - Tialys, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I have to say, this guy had very little credibility, and a poor site design. He also seems to think the term 'Mystery Meat Navigation' is the best term since 'e-mail.'
This is terrible. - wstrucke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9it only "dissolves your credibility" if the EU knows it's a stock photograph.
the average joe on the internet has no idea.google - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Quite refreshing to see usablity, standards, css and tableless design put in their place.
- flernk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Yeah... except for...
"There is nothing wrong with Web Standards, Usability, and tableless CSS except they’re being touted by…guess who?…people who offer web design services specializing in…guess what?…Web Standards, Usability, and tableless CSS."
then...
"See any of my books for more examples"
Way to knock people for pushing their services, only to push services three paragraphs later. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I hate to use this example, but:
http://www.borland.com/us/company/software_delivery.html
Stop putting pictures of random business models in arbitrary business situations looking businessy. Who the hell comes up with this junk? It's as tired as arbitrary dancy young bohemians looking X-treme 2 da maxx in advertisements. Just put some naked chicks up for all the relevance... - rtbenson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Mistake #15: Using those stupid snap.com preview things on your site so that users can't actually click the links.
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -4/+122015? I still haven't lived that long...
- compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11"Why do you pitch web standards? You should be following them anyway. It's like a car company advertising that their vehicles all come with oil in the engines."
Well when more than half of cars don't come with oil in the engines, those that do are certainly going to make you aware that they do. - maestroh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"There is nothing wrong with Web Standards, Usability, and tableless CSS except they’re being touted by…guess who?…people who offer web design services specializing in…guess what?…Web Standards, Usability, and tableless CSS."
And this article was written by.. guess who?... someone who sucks at design and still uses tables - smhill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Flanders has always been a tool. The guy has no real background in ANYTHING except self promotion and of course bitching about stuff. His own site is a perfect example. Not only is it ugly (and always has been), it is a bear to navigate and riddled with pointless graphics. Most of his stuff is either pointless vanity stuff or pointing out the painfully obvious. I wish he would go away.
About #3...
He is half right and half ignorant (which is pretty good for him). Preaching about standards to clients is not necessarily needed. It should be something that you just do as part of being a professional.
However, there are times when it does become important to explain this to the client. While often standards may not directly impact the end users, it is extremely important for overall cost both long term and short term.
And this is why the discussion of standards often come up. We develop high end web applications and complex sites. Often we are brought in when the owners current devs are unable to meet the demands of this type of stuff. If a site is built poorly, not to standards, with tables and non-semantically, it requires a complete overhaul. Trying to integrate advanced features into a slip-shod site takes many more man hours than just building it from scratch. Occasionally we will get called to build into an existing site that is built properly and it goes very quickly.
The web is fluid and constantly evolving. Building a site with a strong forward looking foundation is saves money in the long run. Either that or rebuild the whole thing every few years. And while the questions posed in the 'article' are very valid, clients also are concerned about cost, long term costs and ROI. Those are not to be overlooked.
If it is not a rebuild or extension to an existing site or anything like that, (a brand new site for example) you really don't need to have a lengthy discussion about it with the client. You might mention that you do build sites properly or something like that, but other than you just build it the right way. It takes less time to build a site properly than it does to hack it together out of sheer ignorance. - JeffDM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think MySpace is full of content*.
*this is a euphemism for dog poo - amarketingman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Are you lost? Do you need a ride? Would you like some candy?
- pixelguru, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It used to be that clients would pay a sizable portion of their budget for photography - not stock photography, I mean a real photographer shooting new images just for the project. Stock photography was a dirty little thing that was done when you were in a jam, and nobody would ever be proud of it. Now I have clients who balk at paying anything for photos. Sometimes they want to shoot their own images with the shiny new DSLR they got for Christmas. Ugh! I get garbage to work with and they expect gold.
- ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Funny he mentions #10, too much material on one page.
I stopped reading in the middle of #4, and skimmed the rest.
This guy needs to cut the crap and get to the point. - analogpanda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Of course Jared Spool doesn't talk geek-speak to the execs who just want to talk $$$. But because Jared is smart enough than to bore the execs to tears about standards and usability, that doesn't necessarily make a case for ignoring standards and usability.
1. How do we increase revenue?
-- See #2, 3, and 4.
2. How do we reduce expenses?
-- Use web standards, css, table-less design etc to speed up the production process and speed up the inevitable re-design and/or update process. (if you're still using tables for layout because you don't understand how to effectively use css, then you probably don't know how much easier/efficient/faster web development can be)
3. How do we bring in more customers?
-- Use web standards to decrease code bloat and load times. Use web standards to "make your site search engine friendly" - and thus easier to find for the humans using the search engines.
4. How do we get more business out of each existing customer?
-- Usability. See also #3. A better customer experience may also increase word-of-mouth recommendations - helping with #3.
5. How do we increase shareholder value?
-- See answers to 1-4.
Of course, this is a web design perspective. Business-wise, great customer service, products/services, and marketing are a place to start. - cyzum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4His site looks like ***** and he's commenting on site design?
- smhill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@joelito
He doesn't really explain much at all. He just rambles on like he always does.
The problem is, there is no excuse for his site to suck. Sure it doesn't have be stylistically the greatest thing ever, but it doesn't have to have ***** navigation, distracting graphics or all the other problems.
Bottom line is that he doesn't know ***** all about what he is talking about. He covers some basics in in functional design, some common sense and then just bashes on others who are doing the work. He is a tool. - MondayJBlack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4He's saying most clients really don't care about standards so they're not worth including in the business plan. A pitch should be catered to the clients based on results, not technology.
However, sometimes the technology is a consequence of the pitch, and if the client is interested in search engine position then by all means use standards. But spare the details to the client and user. - joelito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Website owner explains why site is ugly here( http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/whyitsucks.html )
- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I like arbitrary businessy stock photography. It makes my clients happy. A five year old downshot of an accountant looking at a spreadsheet...man. That screams to the soul. Seriously.
- revmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@UCFmethod
I only bashed craigslist for its design. i use craigslist as well, but the design makes me want to spend as little time there as possible. maybe that's the goal, but that's my point. calling me a ***** fanboy was a little out of hand... but saying i like laguna beach and paris hilton was just uncalled for. - 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -5/+91. not mobile ready, or viewable on mobile phones
[two billion mobile phones should can't access your crappy website, why?]
2. any flash at all
3. lack of real content or opinion - ic3box, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4While his points are good... his site is ugly as all hell.
Why should I take advice from this nasty thing he calls his website with a web design? - MisterRibs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The probably with web design is that everybody is a designer. People who can't arrange the magnets on their fridge in a pleasing manner while still having the take-out menus easily accessible suddenly become experts on website navigation, font size... and well... everything.
The top web design mistakes aren't really mistakes... they're usually client requests. - Latka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well, take a look at one of the definitions he makes at his article, pointing to a wikipedia page. Is this guy pompous or what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_Meat_Navigation
Look at the talk page too - diggerphelps, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"We'll put an 8.5MB Flash file on your home page and it'll be bangin'!"
http://www.kkmime.org/ - smhill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@MisterRibs
"...they're usually client requests."
HA! That is certainly very true. Someone will see something they like or amuses them and are convinced they need to have it on their site as well.
It is an often overlooked role of the designer to be an advocate for the client's clients. Difficult to explain this to a client sometimes but you are not really designing a site for them, you are designing a site for their users. - vagrantradio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This guy could use a lesson in his own words. That site ***** sucks. period.
- BobMysterioso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I thought the article was pretty good. I've personally touted the content points to upper management only to be snubbed.
(writes bad table based webapges - programmer, not designer)
there I said it, sorta - UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Ugh! I get garbage to work with and they expect gold."
Boy, don't I know it. Poop in, poop out. - imitrust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Just who puts Google Ads across the very top of the page with left alignment?
- ArthurSucks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Singing Christian Mimes? I loaded 8 MB for that and NO content?! Sweet!
- camkerr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And who breaks his own rule, #9 "Don’t use graphics or Flash for text." Man, using CSS would've made his banner a lot nicer, those JPG artifacts are an eyesore.
- Mugsleymug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3these images piss me off because my boss appears to be heavily influenced by them and insists we look like this.
- firehydra2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How about that website? Isn't that a big mistake?
- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3::blink:: was deprecated. you are supposed to use ::marquee:: now.
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thats funny because when I read it I never noticed the standards... (and I *did* read it)
- TechnoPops, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think this is actually a joke regarding one of the points on the list:
"10. Too much material on one page." - syder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I guess AMP got the message. They are now "under construction"...
http://www.1amp.com/ - mrRB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I once found a designer's site that had a useless splash page and had a flash animation to "type" the text on the home page. This meant the user had to wait 60 seconds before the frakkin' thing loaded, among other offenses. Violating 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11 and 12 in one swoop.
Found it: http://www.goldenhart.co.uk/ -
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is