Why do web site developers insist on ruining functionality with whiz-bang?

[Brad Johnson]

CNN just changed their mobile web format to the hideous "new-thing" scrolling-boxes-within-scrolling-boxes layout. It's awful. Not only is overall functionality crap, it is so script-bloated that it takes almost 20 seconds to fully load on my phone. Even when loaded it doesn't work properly, locking up randomly for extended periods. It also doesn't play nice with my phone's browser when trying to use forms. I couldn't submit feedback with their form until I installed a different browser app.

I've noticed several places.doing the same. Springfield Armory's page is a big offender. Automaker's mobile pages, namely Ford, are so bloated they are virtually unusable.

I've also discovered that I dislike Chrome's mobile browser app. In it's attempt to streamline the app it's so bare bones that everyday ease-of-use suffers noticeably vs my Galaxy's native browser.

*rant off*

Brad

[zahc]

Nsfw, but relevant

http://tinyurl.com/n7etzst

[Boomhauer]

Hell yes it's gotten stupid beyond belief

The news sites in particular tend to be hideous, and not just from the whiz-bang, the ads and scripts have gotten insane (I have to use a script blocker just to be able to access the sites without it jamming up my machine).

And I'm tired of seeing crap like this on the news websites. Stupid ads for stupid *expletive deleted*it...

[Brad Johnson]

Nsfw, but relevant

http://tinyurl.com/n7etzst

"Cross-browser compatibility? Load this mother****er in IE6. I ****ing dare you."

Awsomeness is awesome.

Brad

[Perd Hapley]

Hell yes it's gotten stupid beyond belief

The news sites in particular tend to be hideous, and not just from the whiz-bang, the ads and scripts have gotten insane

That, plus half the articles are not articles at all, but videos. Compared to text, video is horribly inefficient at actually delivering the 5 W's of journalism.

[Boomhauer]

That, plus half the articles are not articles at all, but videos. Compared to text, video is horribly inefficient at actually delivering the 5 W's of journalism.

I. Hate. News. Videos.

I read FAR faster than a video's speed, so I would rather have an article to read vs. a video to watch.

Not that they care about actual journalism in the least, of course.

[roo_ster]

Nsfw, but relevant

http://tinyurl.com/n7etzst

So many website developers need to read that.

[Perd Hapley]

So many website developers need to read that.

If they know how to read.

[230RN]

Jeeze, it loaded so fast I thought it was cached on my machine.

No hangfires.

[Perd Hapley]

Springfield Armory's page is a big offender.
Brad

I just spent several minutes on their web page, and I'd have to say it's actually a lot better than it used to be. Not that that's saying much, and it may have more to do with having a much faster connection than I used to have...

[Firethorn]

I read FAR faster than a video's speed, so I would rather have an article to read vs. a video to watch.

I'm the same way.  I hate it when I click on a news link only to find that the only way to get the content is to watch the bleeping video.  Complete with ads(the point), station intro, etc...

BTW, I wonder if it'd be possible to sue a site if it consistently displayed ads but wouldn't display the content?  'Your honor, I paid for the content by watching their ads, multiple times, but was never served the actual content.  This is deceptive advertising and violation of contract(or something)'.  

Another recent pet peeve when I happened to have to do some browsing without ad&script blocking:  One news site had FIVE videos all set to autoplay AT THE SAME TIME.  Three of them were identical, but for some reason they loaded at different times, so I had an echo effect going.

The site was very usable with the adblocker up though.

I'm like, WTF, are you guys TRYING to drive us to use ad-block?

[never_retreat]

Theres and add on for Firefox called disconnect. Give it a try. Works good for a local papers site that virtually would never finish loading.

[230RN]

'Nother thing that bothers me is low contrast between the text and the background.  Brown text on tan ground is pretty bad on one of the gun sites...also had that cowboy/westen font, I forget what they call it.  

Sometimes I have to "Select All" and copy it to Notepad to read it.

Worst I've seen is red text on blue background.

Click.  

[Boomhauer]

'Nother thing that bothers me is low contrast between the text and the background.  Brown text on tan ground is pretty bad on one of the gun sites...also had that cowboy/westen font, I forget what they call it. 

Sometimes I have to "Select All" and copy it to Notepad to read it.

Worst I've seen is red text on blue background.

Click. 

This too. Some of the forums out there are nigh unreadable to me because of the background colors.

APS is pretty pleasing to me and I can read it without eye fatigue. Same for THR (back when it was worth reading...)

[Brad Johnson]

Used to be a local.website with dark red letters on a dark blue background. It was terrible. Contrast was awful and the wavelength differences made the letters fuzzy.

Brad

[230RN]

^"Contrast was awful and the wavelength differences made the letters fuzzy."

Exactly !  Hence the click.

The internet is a communications medium.  So communicate, darn it !  

Don't play artsyfartsy games with it just to show off how creative you can be.

Like that right there.

[never_retreat]

Something along the lines of projectile vomit html code.

[just Warren]

I've noticed a lot of this as well but I don't know how the sites should be set up for maximal user value.

Where is the line drawn?

Another issue is making me watch a 60+ second commercial  for a 20-30 second highlight. And then making me watch that same commercial every time I click on a new video. I'm looking at you NFL.com. Plus having to watch the same long site logo introduction before each video, just give me a portal where I can watch the videos one after another without all that. I'll watch the site logo intro and commercial up front and if you want to drop a different commercial in every now and again I don't mind.

[Cliffh]

Even the site I use to check on work stuff (schedule, etc.) is loaded down with videos, pictures, scrolling banners, etc.  It is a major retail store, but come on, I'm not buying *expletive deleted*it, I'm just trying to check my damn work schedule!

[Hawkmoon]

   
Why do web site developers insist on ruining functionality with whiz-bang?

Short answer: Because they can.

Developers seem to think they aren't doing their job if they don't include every new toy that's available in a web page or site. They forget that probably 90 percent of the people who will actually be looking at those pages probably don't have the latest, greatest super computer in the universe with which to execute all the garbage they toss in. It's been one of my pet peeves for years.

And another is changing the design of a site just for the sake of changing it. CNN changed their site for regular viewers, too, not just for mobile devices. It's difficult to find anything, and they eliminated the "Justice" story area entirely.

And then there are the program developers. Firefox recently changed their whole user interface. The new one, IMHO, is horrible to the point of being unusable. Installing the new version over an existing version does NOT remember your customization (such as where tabs are located, and which buttons or icons you've added to the basic menu bar). To top it off, in order to keep any semblance of the Firefox you're accustomed to using, you can't just click an icon or menu choice and revert to "Classic Theme." Oh, no -- you have to download and install an unsupported add-on.

I think all web and program developers should be required to work on computers that are not less than five years old, and all new programs and applications should likewise be beta tested on such "legacy" machines.

[Hawkmoon]

That, plus half the articles are not articles at all, but videos. Compared to text, video is horribly inefficient at actually delivering the 5 W's of journalism.

And most "articles" that accompany videos are nothing but a transcription of the video, adding no new or additional information whatsoever.

Journalism is dead..

[KD5NRH]

Another issue is making me watch a 60+ second commercial  for a 20-30 second highlight. And then making me watch that same commercial every time I click on a new video.

Back when I actually bothered with Hulu, I wrote to several of their advertisers pointing out that the same ad 3-4 times in a 30 minute show had very much the opposite effect; even if I might have sort of wanted the product, I was more likely to go look for a competitor that hadn't pissed me off at that point.  IMO, they would have done a lot better to buy all the spots for that show, but only run one ad once, or at least just one full length and a couple of 5-10 second teasers.

[zxcvbob]

How about a page with multiple video windows (some of them content and some of them ads) and they all autoplay at the same time?  And some are off the screen even at high resolution, so you have to scroll down to turn them off, but you can't really scroll because the browser is overwhelmed. 

Adblocker helps tremendously with that.

[Firethorn]

How about a page with multiple video windows (some of them content and some of them ads) and they all autoplay at the same time?  And some are off the screen even at high resolution, so you have to scroll down to turn them off, but you can't really scroll because the browser is overwhelmed. 

Adblocker helps tremendously with that.

You must of hit the same news site I did.  Five autoplay videos, 3 of them copies of the same content(having to do with the article I was after), and 2 others.  There were even more videos loaded, but at least they weren't set to autoplay.

And yes, on my 1920x1200 monitor, ALL of them were off the screen.  I had to scroll all over the place to find them.  It was like playing whack-a-mole.

[MechAg94]

Back when I actually bothered with Hulu, I wrote to several of their advertisers pointing out that the same ad 3-4 times in a 30 minute show had very much the opposite effect; even if I might have sort of wanted the product, I was more likely to go look for a competitor that hadn't pissed me off at that point.  IMO, they would have done a lot better to buy all the spots for that show, but only run one ad once, or at least just one full length and a couple of 5-10 second teasers.

IMO, this same thing applies to radio and TV ads.  A commercial that might be sorta clever and almost funny the first time becomes a reason to change the channel/station after the 132nd time.  I used to get really pissed at some of the radio ads a few years back when I had a long commute.  (see radio ads where two people are having a conversation or TV ads which are the 13th interation of a successful ad campaign)