Top 25 Web Design Faux Pas
kiran kumar
comes right down to it, it's all "design" now, since we are talking
about a (hopefully) cohesive unit, a well-crafted Web site. If it
works well, you will do well. If not, you won't. That's simple, and
keeping things simple really is the best kind of design.
Among these examples are tips for cosmetics, content and
functionality. Even if you've already built your site, you can use
this list as a means of "tweaking" and "refining" your approach. Only
if you have broken every conceivable rule of design and Web strategy
would you need to dump your entire site and start from scratch. It is
likely you could just start cleaning things up a bit, and work your
way from 1 to 25 in no time-then find the list that takes you from 26
to 1,001, or perhaps a million. There are a lot of ways to commit faux
pas in a virtual workplace!
http://www.simplewebdesigning.com/
r0g
> random website will produce a positive result.
Faux Pas #2: Assuming every visitor to your site permits Javascipt and
not even putting in place a simple check to warn non-javascript users
your site will look truly terrible and not work properly without it.
Double points for doing this on a site that claims to be about good web
design!
Roger.
r0g
Faux Pas #3: Failing to include any method of contacting the owner on
your site and thus potentially losing valuable feedback such as "fix
your s****y site and stop spamming the comp lang groups before I hunt
you down and gut you like a fish". Although if you ARE going to spam
usenet maybe it's for the best.
Roger.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> r0g wrote:
>> Robert Tomsick wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 02:31:58 -0800, kiran kumar wrote:
>>>> A list of "Web site mistakes" could go on forever, ...
>>>
>>> Faux Pas #1: Thinking that spamming comp.lang.php with a link to
>>> your random website will produce a positive result.
>>
>> Faux Pas #2: Assuming every visitor to your site permits Javascipt
>> and not even putting in place a simple check to warn ...
>
> Faux Pas #3: Failing to include any method of contacting the owner ...
Faux Pas #4: Continuous quoting of the entire spam (including the link)!
--
-bts
-Could. Not. Resist.
Mark Smith
Faux Pas #2.5:
Clicking on *any* link in a spam message, giving the author more hits
and incentive to keep spamming?
Jim Higgins
<kirn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A list of "Web site mistakes" could go on forever, actually.
Top faux pas is spamming Usenet.
I disagree with "Mistake" #23... "Do not force new browser windows to
open..." All links to offsite content should open in a new browser
window. You should not rely on the "BACK" button to return the
visitor to your own web site after visiting an offsite link.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> kiran kumar spammed:
>> A list of "Web site mistakes" could go on forever, actually.
>
> Top faux pas is spamming Usenet.
Gotta agree with that, though I didn't see it until someone replied.
> I disagree with "Mistake" #23... "Do not force new browser windows to
> open..." All links to offsite content should open in a new browser
> window. You should not rely on the "BACK" button to return the
> visitor to your own web site after visiting an offsite link.
I happen to agree with #23. With a new window covering the original,
novices will have a broken Back button. I explain here:
http://tekrider.net/pages/faq.php?q=osl
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
matt
<a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote:
> Jim Higgins wrote:
> > kiran kumar spammed:
> >> A list of "Web site mistakes" could go on forever, actually.
>
> > Top faux pas is spamming Usenet.
>
> Gotta agree with that, though I didn't see it until someone replied.
>
> > I disagree with "Mistake" #23... "Do not force new browser windows to
> > open..." All links to offsite content should open in a new browser
> > window. You should not rely on the "BACK" button to return the
> > visitor to your own web site after visiting an offsite link.
>
> I happen to agree with #23. With a new window covering the original,
> novices will have a broken Back button. I explain here:
[link snipped]
Of course, if you want to predict what the Muggles are going to do on
your site, you should realize that they're just as likely to "X" out
of the off-site link and then not be able to get back to your page
because you _didn't_ open a new window :)
D Finnigan
Faux Pas #5: Using Gooogle Groups to post on Usenet.
D Finnigan
So the solution, therefore, is to open links in the same window _and_ a new
window.
Problem solved. :-P
matt
D
Don't know if you're sniping at me or the OP (I'm on Google Groups so
I can't see the OP headers ;) ) Anyway, my excuse is a tightly-
controlled corporate network with blocks on just about every port but
80, 139 and whatever the hell MS Exchange uses. I do get confused
sometimes when I go from comp.lang.php to alt.windows.douchebags and I
can't figure out if Google popped up a new window for me or not ;).
Oh, and I've got better shit to do at home then troll around here...so
corporate workarounds it is!
Matt
D Finnigan
> On Dec 16, 2:26�pm, dog_...@macgui.com (D Finnigan) wrote:
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> > r0g wrote:
>>
>> >> r0g wrote:
>> >>> Robert Tomsick wrote:
>> >>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 02:31:58 -0800, kiran kumar wrote:
>> >>>>> A list of "Web site mistakes" could go on forever, ...
>>
>> >>>> Faux Pas #1: Thinking that spamming comp.lang.php with a link to
>> >>>> your random website will produce a positive result.
>>
>> >>> Faux Pas #2: Assuming every visitor to your site permits Javascipt
>> >>> and not even putting in place a simple check to warn ...
>>
>> >> Faux Pas #3: Failing to include any method of contacting the owner ...
>>
>> > Faux Pas #4: Continuous quoting of the entire spam (including the
>> > link)!
>>
>> Faux Pas #5: Using Gooogle Groups to post on Usenet.
>
> D
>
> Don't know if you're sniping at me or the OP (I'm on Google Groups so
> I can't see the OP headers ;) )
Nope, didn't notice. Just the OP, like all 4 previous Faux Pa's. I'll adjust
it for you, then. ;-)
"Using Gooogle Groups to post spam on Usenet."
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> Jim Higgins wrote:
>>> kiran kumar spammed:
>>>> A list of "Web site mistakes" could go on forever, actually.
>>
>>> Top faux pas is spamming Usenet.
>>
>> Gotta agree with that, though I didn't see it until someone replied.
>>
>>> I disagree with "Mistake" #23... "Do not force new browser windows
>>> to open..." �All links to offsite content should open in a new
>>> browser window. �You should not rely on the "BACK" button to return
>>> the visitor to your own web site after visiting an offsite link.
>>
>> I happen to agree with #23. With a new window covering the original,
>> novices will have a broken Back button. I explain here:
>
> [link snipped]
Why?
> Of course, if you want to predict what the Muggles are going to do on
> your site, you should realize that they're just as likely to "X" out
> of the off-site link and then not be able to get back to your page
> because you _didn't_ open a new window :)
I can't say I've ever seen a Muggle close the browser because the Back
button didn't work. I have watched them attempt the Back button, and
finding nothing happens, go back to Google and look for something else
to read (as I explained on my page).
When they finally do tire of surfing, then they close the browser, and
lo and behold, there is your site hidden underneath that new window!
