|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:46 pm
Browsing through the CSS Zen Garden, I came across this gem. Don't worry, it was made this bad on purpose, but the sad truth is a lot of the mistakes found on this page can be found on plenty of sites across the internet. So yes, its ugly. It's not a successful design. But why? Point out any mistakes or problems with it that you see, and why they are mistakes. Just go through a few, let others have a chance to analyse it as well ^_^ Don't be afraid to really rip it apart, it won't be hurting anyone's feelings.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:11 pm
*hopes she is doing this right* eek Wow!...I mean...WOW! *feels eyes bleed* Flashing things everywhere!!!! Not to mention HORRIBLE color schemes! Egads! I came across a website once that had flashy things galore! There was no smooth layout and everything was just thrown in and scattered. It reminded me of the commericals by Delta Dental lol They only do dental insurance but their commercials make fun of those insurance companies that have more than one coverage type lol So they'd pair together things like "Fast Food and Marriage Counseling" or "Animal Kennel and Psychic Readings" lol that website totally went there! It was a bunch of bleh thrown together.
Now this site....it's just.... eek ...it takes the cake! lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:53 pm
-Nasty font changes
-random font colour changes
-backgrounds so you can't see the font
-too many different backgrounds
-MOVING background >_<
-too much animated stuff
-change the liiiiink properties. Blue underlined=not pretty. gonk
-Cheap-looking graphics, with too few pixels. >_<
That was about all I could find. gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:01 pm
As the person above already said...the blinkies! gonk
But also, the colors just completely clash. There's no cohesiveness to the page in either graphics or colors.
The organization is just downright horrendous. One can't even figure out what the purpose of the page is.
That rainbow background on the bottom is PAINFUL to the eyes. The flower background on the bottom makes text harder to read. Actually, just all the background are so...ick.
It's just overall messy and everything is distracting from the information that webpages are supposed to present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:49 pm
Hm... This looks...
1. As if a 2 year old made this
2. The moving background flowers take the focal point away from the main page.
3. Seems as if its one of those pages that were just threw together with a whole bunch of graphics they stole from someone else's website.
4. Too many sections that make the page looked cluttered
5. The font color is okay, but they used too many different colors to make the page seem that there was no method to the madness.
6. The themes on the side would be better if the font size was smaller and the graphics infront of the links take up too much space to make the page appear as an actual 'theme'
7. The only thing that makes the page seem anywhere near the same theme would be the overabundance of flower graphics.
8. Most of the graphics move and take focus away from what the main site is trying to achieve.
9. I hope the person really did mean this as a joke, otherwise I hope they're on medication now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:00 am
Yay! ^_^ You guys have gotten the main ones that I can see... namely the total lack of cohesiveness or flow, the many animated thingies, terrible backgrounds and all the different text colours.
Here's a few others I can think of, just looking at the typography:
- Comic Sans is second only to Times New Roman in suckiness and overuse on the web. And its all over this page gonk
- Monotype fonts (used in the 'So What's This About?' section) are harder to read due to the way they are spaced.
- Times New Roman (in the 'Participation' section) is even more ugly and unreadable on the web than Comic Sans.
- Large sections in italics -> harder to read
- Large sections in bold -> harder to read
- Large sections with centered or right alignment -> harder to read
- Flashing text -> harder to read, distracts from other content, looks cheesy
- 'Archives' is spelt wrong xd
... and that's just the typograhy.
@System: I doubt someone who could make a site this bad as anything other than a joke would know about CSS Zen Garden, or CSS in general xd The title of this one is 'Geocities 1996', so I'm guessing its made to reflect common mistakes and trends when suddenly having a website became possible for the average person 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:04 am
Jadeth -change the liiiiink properties. Blue underlined=not pretty. gonk Oooh, but they did! There's a moving bug background on all the links on hover xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:45 am
Chisa Jadeth -change the liiiiink properties. Blue underlined=not pretty. gonk Oooh, but they did! There's a moving bug background on all the links on hover xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:52 am
I just want to mention the total lack of purpose. The text at the top says something about selecting a style sheet or something, but then I'm completely lost with what to do next. There links over there, but more text, and some other links, and something that could be useful at the bottom... but I don't know what's going on. If I was looking at this for a resource I would definately already be off to Google to get something else a little easier to follow. There's just no point of purpose and nothing of content in the top of the page (what I can see without scrolling)... I don't know what better way to say it.
Otherwise... she forgot to change my lovely little white arrowed cursor into something large and obnoxious with no reason. A really bad webpage needs a really bad cursor... but maybe they didn't have that yet in 1996. And I didn't hear any terrible midis of Dust in the Wind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:39 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:43 am
Like everyone already said, the graphics are bad. Also, the numerous animations take the page longer to load and we all know that not everyone has LAN but that a lot of them have dial-up. It also takes time to scroll down, I mean, I scroll and it takes about a second or two before the page scrolls down.
What happens with the dial-up people then? They'll probably have to wait for god-knows-how-long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:52 am
@Wallaby: The cursor does change to a question mark when over the 'Participation' section, which isn't too bad I guess, although I don't really like anything that changes my cursor at all. There isn't a way of embedding midis with CSS that I know of and you have to use the standard html for CSS Zen Garden layouts, otherwise I'm sure they would have included it xd
A few other things I got:
- Weird aligning on some of the elements, particularly the 'Under Construction' and counter at the bottom. They're not contained within the containing element, so it comes off looking very messy.
- Hit counters, 'wow', 'cool' and 'under construction' graphics are horrible and, gimmicky and unneccessary.
- The frame at the bottom requires scrolling both ways to read anything.
- 'Netscape now' banner xd Out of date and unnecessary.
- Doesn't fit in 800x600. Slightly picky, but meh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:48 pm
My eyes! They bleed! gonk
I couldn't look at it for long enough to find anyhting that hasn't been said afore. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:54 pm
Egads! No no no....that will NEVER do........I had to switch over to 'Peace of Mind' almost immediately........ eek That was 'orrible!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:49 am
xd Scary isn't it? I can't think of anything else now either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
