Hows this for bad web-page design & Structure and manage

Spicy-McHaggis · Post by **Spicy-McHaggis** » 13 Jan 2007, 11:12

Hows this for bad web-page design & Structure and management!

LOL

Incredible 1d1075.1

Incredible 1d1075.2

Post by **Ron2K** » 15 Jan 2007, 08:51

I think they need to read this.

PaperCut · Post by **PaperCut** » 15 Jan 2007, 09:21

Eish, talk about bad designing!

shouldn't this be in 'HTML' and not 'Chillout relax'

Post by **Anthro** » 15 Jan 2007, 10:23

I saw that the other day - sent them a email - they did not reply, not even a whisper form them 8O which means they are happy with the way it looks (and quite frankly, so it seems with their pricing and products aswell..)

Post by **Kronos** » 15 Jan 2007, 10:38

Firstly, that's not bad designing, it's a simple browser error.
Secondly, many, many companies, only test their website on IE, therefore, on Firefox, or Opera, rendering errors can occur unnoticed by the developers.

But you can't claim bad design, nor structure from a browser error.
Yes, they should test the site on more than just IE, but the site design is still OK.

F-ROD · Post by **F-ROD** » 15 Jan 2007, 10:44

browsers have different rules rite, and its up 2 the developer/designer 2 ensure multiple browser compatibility, so i would not say its a browser error, because the browser has its own rules, and its up to you to conform to them. It still is bad design

Post by **Kronos** » 15 Jan 2007, 10:52

F-ROD wrote:browsers have different rules rite, and its up 2 the developer/designer 2 ensure multiple browser compatibility, so i would not say its a browser error, because the browser has its own rules, and its up to you to conform to them. It still is bad design

No. Multiple browser compatibility is not a prerequisite to a web app. or web page even.

At the company I worked for Previously, we explicitly stated in the documentation that only IE is supported. It is not bad design. But it is a design desicion to only support IE.

I hardly go a day without seeing at least 1 site that does not support Opera. But I don't go blaming them of bad design. I simply open the site in IE.

PS. it's "Right", not rite.

Post by **Ron2K** » 15 Jan 2007, 11:18

Kronos wrote:No. Multiple browser compatibility is not a prerequisite to a web app. or web page even.

I disagree. If you can't be bothered to make sure that everyone can't view your page, I can't be bothered to visit your site again. Not everyone uses IE, and those that don't have very good reasons for not opening it up.

"Best viewed with Internet Explorer/Opera/Netscape Navigator/<insert favourite web browser here>" is the biggest sign of an incompetent web designer. For <flips> sake, HTML is supposed to be about device independence. Just because it gets past the brain-damaged parser of everyone's favourite bloatware browser doesn't mean it's OK. Of course, your average web designer that only designs a site for one web browser is generally too stupid to understand this.

F-ROD · Post by **F-ROD** » 15 Jan 2007, 11:32

yeh yeh @ron

Post by **Kronos** » 15 Jan 2007, 11:32

So what you're saying is that because I am forced to use a pre built vbscript web app that is not supported in opera, I am incompotent?

HTML is device independent, however, the problem is not with HTML itself. It's all the add-on technologies that are a problem.
Flash, javascript, vbscript, etc. are all extensions to web technology.
Yet, none of them work on Opera Mini on my phone? So then Every single page on the internet that has any of these technonlogies was written by an incompotent web developer?

eraser · Post by **eraser** » 15 Jan 2007, 11:42

Kronos wrote:So what you're saying is that because I am forced to use a pre built vbscript web app that is not supported in opera, I am incompotent?

HTML is device independent, however, the problem is not with HTML itself. It's all the add-on technologies that are a problem.
Flash, javascript, vbscript, etc. are all extensions to web technology.
Yet, none of them work on Opera Mini on my phone? So then Every single page on the internet that has any of these technonlogies was written by an incompotent web developer?

I see your point and i agree with it!

Post by **Ron2K** » 15 Jan 2007, 12:04

Kronos wrote:So what you're saying is that because I am forced to use a pre built vbscript web app that is not supported in opera, I am incompotent?

It's obviously not your fault if your company forces you to use it.

I'm in the same situation myself, where I'm forced to use proprietary stuff that's only compatible with one software app. I'm busy fighting that. To say "stuff you" to the hordes of Opera and Firefox users out there (not to mention the Linux guys) is impolite and inconsiderate.

Kronos wrote:HTML is device independent, however, the problem is not with HTML itself. It's all the add-on technologies that are a problem.
Flash, javascript, vbscript, etc. are all extensions to web technology.
Yet, none of them work on Opera Mini on my phone? So then Every single page on the internet that has any of these technonlogies was written by an incompotent web developer?

It depends what you use, and how you use them. Using Flash and Shockwave is a bad idea, because they take forever to load up (I also put web designers who fail to acknowledge the fact that a lot of South Africans still use 56K lines in the incompetent category), and they're proprietary and therefore not portable. I'll admit that making sure a webpage runs on a cellphone is one of the hardest things to do (I haven't gotten my own personal site working right, and all it uses is HTML and PHP), but at least try. (Although my problems are more to do with the lower screen resolutions, I'll admit.) Java and Javascript is more acceptable as they're more portable, but keep it simple. The page that I linked to earlier makes reference to a Fortune 100 company that, if you have Netscape installed, assumes that you can use Java, and if you had Java disabled for whatever reason, it made the site unuseable. Definitely the wrong way to go about things.

But then, most corporate websites suck. They suck up your bandwidth downloading some arb corporate image, and the website is just how "wonderful" the company is, some advertising, and no useful content at all. Useful content is the most important thing on an internet page; you can (to a certain extent) be forgiven for bad design if the content is OK. A simple website with excellent content will always draw people back (if you don't believe me, take a look at Sybaritic). A flashy webpage with awful content will not. If you can blend the two, by making a webpage that looks great while not taking too long to load, and has great stuff on it, then you're a brilliant web designer in my books.

Post by **Kronos** » 15 Jan 2007, 12:19

I agree with you, but as you said, the choice is not always yours.

Many Design desicions that I've had to implement were exactly bound to the problem of Javascript being available or not.

The Client wants their site to look exactly as they specify, with all the functionality. If for some reason Javascript is disabled, the App is unusable. But by the company's demand, we cannot skimp on the features. Therefore the clause of what is supported, and what is required (like JS being turned on) to be able to use the app.

Post by **Anthro** » 15 Jan 2007, 14:04

Ron2K wrote:(I also put web designers who fail to acknowledge the fact that a lot of South Africans still use 56K lines in the incompetent category),

Tell that to www.acmstudios.co.za

Post by **Ron2K** » 15 Jan 2007, 14:35

* clicks on link *

Ye gods. How does that thing load over dial-up?

eraser · Post by **eraser** » 15 Jan 2007, 15:18

Ron2K wrote:* clicks on link *

Ye gods. How does that thing load over dial-up?

It doesnt?!?

Post by **Anthro** » 15 Jan 2007, 15:36

Sorry Maxxis, maar ek moes net. . .