Now, THAT's design!



  •  

    Hard to believe that someone would do a design like this as a serious task, but after seeing the posts on these forums...



  • Meh. it has it's charm ;)



    I wouldn't pay for it though, I hope the webmaster there didn't either.




  • ACK!

    Terrible doesn't even begin to describe the atrocity! I mean - a full two page wide, half-empty, badly formatted nightmare. Although the elements could probably be combined to a decent site, if one wanted to.



  • The site isn't half as bad in Firefox as it is in IE. It's still no work of art, though.

    Not surprisingly, it doesn't validate.



  • "My desktop is 1600x1200, therefore everybody uses this same resolution"

     



  • The only thing wrong with that site is that it's missing some prominent
    marker saying "Made for Mozilla, the rest of you go home." I must have
    missed the memo when it became a wtf to have a unique, if less than
    usable, site design online. Based on the site, it also appears that the site owners designed it; no one bought it and no one sold it.



    If you want really bad site design, try www.webpagesthatsuck.com.



  • "<!--StartFragment -->If you are looking at the site withInternet Explorer, stop right now, and get firefox. Click the picture below to make that happen."

    I had to scroll a bit to find that, so I guess it isn't all that prominent, but there's a marker for you.

    "Unique" site design is fine, but that site, as seen by IE, is no less than fugly.



  • @Unforgiven said:

    The site isn't half as bad in Firefox as it is in IE. It's still no work of art, though.

    Not surprisingly, it doesn't validate.

    Indeed, but can you give me a well-known site that does validate (besides www.w3.org)?  I've tried google, msn, yahoo, msdn, etc, and none of them seem to validate.



  • @UncleMidriff said:

    "Unique" site design is fine, but that site, as seen by IE, is no less than fugly.



    All right, I'll grant you that, it's obvious the only attempt he made
    to code for IE was to put a tag saying get rid of it on there.



    Unless, of course, he intentionally crippled the site for IE. >.>
    If it looks that bad in Safari and Opera then maybe he did, using
    -moz-x extensions to turn it into a sea of omgwtf. =D Hmm, nope, looks
    like a mess of iframes-in-divs-in-tables with some flash thrown in for
    good effect. A little troubleshooting didn't turn up the problem;
    whatever's conflicting in that table code in subtle.



    I wonder what the hell possessed him to make the page 803 pixels wide?
    Just to piss off anyone with 800x600 res? (If you're viewing this with
    800x600, STOP RIGHT NOW! Upgrade to 1024x768 or better now!)



  • Anyone remembers the internet boom, when everybody was saying that with a website everybody can see you?

    Now, thanks to the browser wars, you can get rid of this, and let your website be viewed only by a few fraction of the surfers.

    Isn't this a great step?



  • "All my friends have firefox, therefore I will show a blank page on any browser other than firefox."



    ROCK!



  • @Savior said:

    after seeing the posts on these forums…

    Or after seeing the forum itself… [;)]


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.