1995-2015

(Discussion based on article Biggest Mistake in Web Design 1995-2015 by Vincent Flanders.)

(Look at this incredibly terrible website that he "recommends" viewing! It's super horrible! The most viscerally UNAPPEALING thing EVER.)

Flanders is all about user-friendly design. He stresses the point that a website is for VIEWERS not for the person who made it. Nearly every aspect of web design that he mentioned was to aid the person going to the site. Contrast, GIF fails, font size, "Mystery Meat" style navigation, etc. I thought it was pretty humorous the way he "responded" to hypothetical website owners who are trying to think that they're website is awesome:

"Before you start saying, 'My site also has Heroin Content so I don't have to worry about the design,' let me point out a small fact. Your site doesn't have Heroin Content. Digg.com has it, YouTube borrows a lot of it, and Google is another site that has Heroin Content."

Anyway, he also goes over Norman's design elements (Vis, Beh, and Ref). Behavioral is obvious- user-friendly design. The site has to work, be navigable, and have the ability to be viewed! Viscerally, websites have to be contrasty and, preferably, in pleasing, viewable colors. This can also encompass font size, which is critical if you, I don't know, want people to see your site. And he even goes over a bit of reflective design while talking about how, at times, reflective-important websites may be able to overrule some of his points. 

I was told before reading this article that it was crappy. I disagree. I understand that the page has missing links and videos, but I don't think that is necessarily the dude's fault. There are many reasons some things may be missing- one being the fact that certain website owners may get upset by being examples of crappy design... I think that this could bring his credibility down, but what he says has obvious value no matter who is saying it. I imagine most people know that these make for poorly designed website, but until they are listed together, a person may not be as aware. Basically what I mean is that, I imagine, no one was surprised by these website flaws he pointed out.

The most important points were 1) make it make sense for the viewer, this includes purpose, navigation, and usability; and 2) make it viewable, for instance text=text, no useless GIFs, contrast, readable font shape/size/color, layout, or, again, navigation.

I pretty much agree with the man. I want the site to use contrast/color so I can see it and not strain my eyes. I don't want music or commercials or ads or animation to show up and not only annoy the crap outta me but slow the load process. Which is another thing to note, I know I don't always have high speed internet, but if a website is going to kill the bandwidth, they could at least give me the option of having an alternate site that doesn't include all their graphics and videos and whatnot. That also should be considered- the graphics and animation. I don't think people need to use the poor quality and overall lame looking graphics of the past! And animation, especially repetitive, can be distracting or plain useless. Not to mention unprofessional at best. I also strongly agree with Flanders about the navigation bar! I find it so annoying when they are weird looking and complicated and misleading. I also find a repetitive picture as a website background to be completely ugly and amateur. 

I want to note that I find the Hornet Hive, or was it the Portal, (see how confusing it is already?!) to be most confusing! It took me a lifetime to figure out anything on it. It wants to be well-organized and efficient, but it is certainly over-designed and confusing.