What is Digg?Sponsored by Amazon.com
Kindle(TM) - Give the Ultimate Last Minute gift view!
amazon.com - Order Kindle now and receive it in time for Christmas. Free Expedited shipping. Click to learn more.
54 Comments
- polvo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Could the fonts on the page be any bigger. His site is actually easier to look and read if you disable style sheets.
These are such basic mistakes you can put this list up every year and it would be the same.
Lame, and not dugg - BitSlash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2More like top ten of all time mistakes.
These problems have been with us since the dawn of time... - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One thing that REALLY irks me about forms is how they segment them so that you never know really EVERYTHING they're going to ask for until you get to the last page. I think websites that request personal information should be required to tell you exactly what they're going to ask for, in the order they're going to ask for it, so that you can make an informed decision as to whether or not to even begin filling the form out.
- smithco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's amazing how many of those mistakes are avoided with my favourite, and hopefully everyone's favourite, design idiom "Keep it simple; keep it standard".
- pierre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This guy is preaching about how to design websites? His site looks like a 4th graders first site.
- bland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Jakob was right ten years ago and he's still saying the same things... and he's just as right.
Dugg because it's the simple truth. (Although, I don't agree that splash screens and Flash intros are almost extinct. Seems like I've been seeing more and more of them recently.) - mouthster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2He makes some good points, well.. more like common sense.. but damn.. what if every site on the web looked like his ? Something tells me if he had his way we would all be using Lynx to browse the web.
- Corny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"On big monitors, websites are difficult to use if they don't resize with the window."
Look who's talking... - MadChicken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1POPUPS! Worse now than ever.
- flaming_monkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To those who say "nothing new here", you're correct. What Jakob said isn't new and he even wrote to that affect in the second paragraph of the article:
"Thus, when you read this year's top ten list, you'll probably say, 'Yes, I've heard about this before.'"
To those who immaturely cry "His own website is crap.", I partially agree with you. His web site isn't aesthetically elegant. However, it is legible and that is the focus of the guidelines (as I interpret it).
I believe the title of the article is causing confusion. The term 'design' is often interpreted as meaning the look of an object or website, this is not the case. The visual aspect of a design is only one part of a much larger and complex system.
I apologise for ranting a little here. I was overcome with a urge to set some wrongs right. And I would like to put across one last point. I like digg, it's a slashdot/del.icio.us hybrid of sorts, but _some_ of the comments attached to the articles attract here are of a sub human level. If only there was a Bayesian filter for immaturity we could all enjoy a more pleasant experience. - BlueLaser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@flaming_monkey
OFF TOPIC: If digg users would just rate immature comments more regularly, we could begin to improve the quality of these threads.
This comment being technically off-topic itself, I hope someone DOES rate it and lead the way to an improved digg. - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>> Jump over to archive.org and have a walk down memory lane and look at how much web usability has been (in many cases) enhanced in the last 6 years...
Not that much really. The web has been surely polluted with people that think usability and aesthetics are synonymous, when in fact, they are often at opposite ends of the spectrum. A very common example...Google. It hasn't changed much since its inception...it started out with a strikingly usable interface, and it still has a strikingly usable interface.
Thick layers of visual sugar do nothing for usability, but this is where I've seen the much of the effort. Once you get past that, you still run into the same kinds of design problems that have existed since day one- probably not as often, but often enough. - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That is one ugly website. Now the website for the Nielsen Norman Group at http://www.nngroup.com is a million times better. Check out Don Normans's website at http://www.jnd.org - seems he is breaking Jakob's rule about underlining links. Do Jakob and Don have heated discussions - maybe fist-a-cuffs - about how links should be presented on a website?
- BlueLaser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Having read many of Nielsen's books (including Designing Web Usability and Home Page Usability), I agree that he offers many good fundamental "truths" about usable web design.
However, to site books that were published in 1999 and 2001 (respectively) and call them definitive guides on web usability seems a little optimistic to me. Jump over to archive.org and have a walk down memory lane and look at how much web usability has been (in many cases) enhanced in the last 6 years... - samgab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Take this digg site as an example. It's great. Easy to use, fast, and it looks good, without being overly complex. (notice the semi-transparent pop-ups?) Good times.
(Of course, one could restore the browser window and resize it to whatever size is desired, incidentally.) - aristofeles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In the good old times, like here: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20031222.html , the top 10 of the year would come out only at the end of the year....
- mojaam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Looking for examples of these kind of mistakes? Look no further then MySpace.com and even Xanga.
- hfswagon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1matriculated: "Let's add poor spelling and grammer to the list."
Is this supposed to be funny??
It's "grammar."
You know, they have a "check spelling" button. And it works. - gbm85, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Good read for all those lame wannabe webmasters out there. *cough*
- parkaboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Oh yeah! A top ten list of web design mistakes that uses huge fonts and blue underlined links. I'm gonna have to rethink things...
- craigtheguru, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I wish I could ultra-digg this link, as well as Jakob Nielsen's other works.
- starfishsystems, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'll add one: JavaScript, or more particularly JavaScript that replicates ordinary browser behavior. Hyperlinks that invoke java methods to activate the link are the most egregious of these.
- michael6055, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Thank god somebody besides me also thinks Flash website are annoying.
- craigtheguru, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Jakob Nielsen's writings should be required reading for all web developers and UI designers. In my experience however, most of his principles fall on deaf ears. Damn you management, why don't you listen and provide your users a better experience!
- BlueLaser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Jakob Nielsen on why his site has no graphics:
"Download times rule the Web, and since most users have access speeds on the order of 28.8 kbps, Web pages can be no more than 3 KB if they are to download in one second which is the required response time for hypertext navigation. Users do not keep their attention on the page if downloading exceeds 10 seconds, corresponding to 30 KB at modem speed. Keeping below these size limits rules out most graphics. "
Most users have speeds of 28.8?! Oh wait, doesn't he say in his "top 10" summary that a site should have "no outdated content". Nielsen needs to get his head out of the usability labs and into the new millennium... - mortal-god, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I dunno, personally I like small fonts, links that arn't blue and underlined and open in new windows (because FF opens them in new tabs). Flash pages look nice and I am getting enough bw to load them quickly. And that is just the top 4.
So yeah sorry but no digg, times change. - skeemer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm am not a graphics person and don't think that you need them to make a page look nice.
This web page looks horrible. There is no appeal whatsoever.
Just one example. Look at the link on his name. He stops the link before " 's " so you have this two toned word and the bright blue and underline just accentuate it even more. I'm not saying bright blue underlined links look horrible, but it sure does when you stop a link mid-word. But then changing the color in a title just looks wrong. So maybe what links look like isn't the problem, but linking too much. - kortina, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Shorter forms -- word. I hate long forms.
- miscoco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Jakob hasn't been relevant since 1996, about the year his current site was designed. To his credit, he makes some decent, if not obvious points, but if everyone listened to him there would be zero innovation whatsoever. Do you like reading columns of text that are 1200px wide? I don't.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Zampa - I think they were referring to useless things like Flash splashes and not useful things like UI and applications (though forcing people to use Flash for an application always struck me as a bad idea and seriously limiting the people that could use it).
Jakob is a bit of a luddite and a bit of a wad, but this list he gives is exactly correct in my mind. Sure his website is butt ugly, but he gives people good things to consider when it comes to usability. - casabona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0 gnatinator- he isnt saying all sites should look like his.
He is saying you shouldn't do these things, not make it look boring.
Use style, but use it cautiously. - MisterKen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0D'oh!
I mean to say bring back BLINKING TYPE in 2006.
I want that 1995 vibe in all my sites next year. - Zoobster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1People still listen to this noise tube?
- gatorsrule21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0relating to hsfwagon's post,
"I agree.
People should spell things write on there websites."
doesn't make much sense either.... - eaasness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I think this mainly applies to commerce sites. In that case I totally agree. Flash is cool, but I don't need it when I'm looking for a stick of ram or a new hard drive.
- nathanchase, on 05/06/2009, -1/+0Since I'm a Flash developer, I have to disagree with Flash being number 3 on that list. Flash has come a long way, baby. It's going to take a while to remove the stigma. It's a full rich internet application development tool now, instead of purely a vector-based web animation tool.
- jteague82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0what this site needs is a little web 2.0 magic! and, a really sweet gif of some flames.
- noahhendrix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Isn't this what just about every tripod website is.. ?
- suicidal-kid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Man i need to get my site together.
- HomelessBrian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1is it just me or is the site that describes the top 10 design mistakes HIDEOUS! hahahaha
- diggerphelps, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I agree.
People should spell things write on there websites. - MisterKen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I dunno...
When I read some of this I cannot help but hear some old man saying "Hey, you damn kids stay off my lawn! And make your type 1.5em dammit!"
I say bring back in 2006! Who's with me!! WOOO! - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Could the fonts on the page be any bigger. His site is actually easier to look and read if you disable style sheets."
I agree. - coztopia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0how about: "Don't have text across the full width of the page because people don't like to move their head side to side when they read pages"
- samgab, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0That guy is on about what makes websites bad. But LOOK at his CRAP website!!!!! It looks awful! Sure it's easy to read, but it's hard on the eyes. Old phart.
- Leftyshields, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yeah. He should get advice on his hair.
- matriculated, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Let's add poor spelling and grammer to the list.
- samgab, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0His explanation as to why there are no graphics:
"Why This Site Has Almost No Graphics
Several reasons:
* Download times rule the Web, and since most users have access speeds on the order of 28.8 kbps, Web pages can be no more than 3 KB if they are to download in one second which is the required response time for hypertext navigation..."
WHAT? Most users at 28.8kbps? Maybe in the early 90s... But his website is still following the crap old ideals but many people have 2Mbps connections. - photophunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Times have changed, so has the web. Good old days.
- gnatinator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1If all sites looked like his, the internet would be so plain and bland.
He raises some good points, but you need visual style to keep things interesting. -
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
