Lovely website



  • I use to be "affiliated" with this company, decided to check out their website to see how they're progressing.

    Enjoy... www.guy-tek.com



  • WTFs I see:

    • "RightClick disabled"
    • Clicking the buttons on the top don't seem to do anything, except somehow pop up an alert() with the text of the button.
    • The spinny zooming Flash thing that makes it impossible to read the portfolio
    • The enitre homepage is one image with a "sound [on]" link for some reason.

    It looks like they tried to replicate an image map with JavaScript, but left it buggy and half-complete, it rarely detects clicks and won't load the new pages, instead favoring to alert the text of the header, as if it were a stub function.

    I dare not dig too deeply into the source code, but apparently they're still designing for IE5/Netscape.



  • yeah. that is WTF.



  •  The best is how it operates completely different for IE and Firefox, I don't have Chrome installed to try that though.



  •  Ah, crap, right-click disabled.

    There goes my chance to view the page source ...



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    WTFs I see:

    • "RightClick disabled"
    • Clicking the buttons on the top don't seem to do anything, except somehow pop up an alert() with the text of the button.
    • The spinny zooming Flash thing that makes it impossible to read the portfolio
    • The enitre homepage is one image with a "sound [on]" link for some reason.

    I found one more.  The "Press" button leads to a page with a completely different look.  Seems to be their old site.  That had a few WTFs in itself:

    • Pages are named index.html, page2.html, ..., page6.html.  FrontPage anyone?
    • The links in the menu include the domain part of the URL.
    • Forced linebreaks within sentences
    • Lots and lots of unnecessary formatting tag spam.  I mean seriously.  This run of closing tags speaks for itself: </o:p></span></b></font></p></font></font></font></font></font></span>


  • @DOA said:

     Ah, crap, right-click disabled.

    There goes my chance to view the page source ...

    Try Opera.

    left-click

    RightClick disabled

    right-click

    (works)

    middle-click

    (does what they intended left-click to do, I think)



  •  O...kay. I think I just found another one. Don't ask me how, but I just activated something called 'Tiltviewer'. It does pretty much what it sounds like it does; brings up a sort of site map that lets you zoom in and read each page.



  • @Vempele said:

    @DOA said:

     Ah, crap, right-click disabled.

    There goes my chance to view the page source ...

    Try Opera.

    [...]

    Try adjusting your irony sensor.



  • @Cantabrigian said:

    @Vempele said:

    Try Opera.

    [...]

    Try adjusting your irony sensor.

    Try reading the post. "Check out what happens in Opera; It misidentifies the mouse buttons."



  • @bannedfromcoding said:

    @Cantabrigian said:

    @Vempele said:

    Try Opera.

    [...]

    Try adjusting your irony sensor.

    Try reading the post. "Check out what happens in Opera; It misidentifies the mouse buttons."

     

    Also try the middle mouse button.

     

    Guess we can all blame James Kringel for this...

    I also didn't know http error were versioned now... ok 404 is still at version 404.0, but 403 is now at version 403.14.



  • @Jake Grey said:

     O...kay. I think I just found another one. Don't ask me how, but I just activated something called 'Tiltviewer'. It does pretty much what it sounds like it does; brings up a sort of site map that lets you zoom in and read each page.

     

    Ah, damn.  TiLtviewer.



  • It's a new way of handling status codes in IIS 7, see this for a simple intro. http://msmvps.com/blogs/bernard/archive/2006/12/19/what-s-changed-iis-7-status-codes.aspx



  •  @Hitsuji said:

    I also didn't know http error were versioned now... ok 404 is still at version 404.0, but 403 is now at version 403.14.

    I think it means HTTP 40π Pie not found



  • @DOA said:

     Ah, crap, right-click disabled.

    There goes my chance to view the page source ...

    I presume you're being ironic, but why do page authors disable right-click?  Even IE 7 has Page/ViewSource in the "command bar".  And there are lots of ways to steal images...



  • @DWalker59 said:

    but why do page authors disable right-click?  Even IE 7 has Page/ViewSource in the "command bar".  And there are lots of ways to steal images...
    Because they're idiots for the reasons you mentioned and more.



  • @DWalker59 said:

    I presume you're being ironic, but why do page authors disable right-click?  Even IE 7 has Page/ViewSource in the "command bar".  And there are lots of ways to steal images...
    Because the authors don't actually realise that there are other ways to perform 'view source' (or 'save as' for images,) beyond the context (right-click) menu.

    They think they're protecting their web page. They're wrong. Explaining this to them is usually futile.

     



  • @PJH said:

    They think they're protecting their web page. They're wrong. Explaining this to them is usually futile.

    I wouldn't be so harsh. They [b]are[/b] protecting their web page from all the users who don't realise there are other ways to get the images. Which is basically the maximum protection possible given that you want to serve the images at all, and does cover a large part of the threat. If nothing else, by making people work harder than right-click / save as, they're deterring the lazy casual user who wouldn't mind snagging a copy but can't be bothered putting any effort into it.



  • @Scarlet Manuka said:

    does cover a large part of the threat
     

    Numbers needed.



  • @dhromed said:

    @Scarlet Manuka said:

    does cover a large part of the threat
     

    Numbers needed.

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9



  • @Scarlet Manuka said:

    @PJH said:

    They think they're protecting their web page. They're wrong. Explaining this to them is usually futile.

    I wouldn't be so harsh. They are protecting their web page from all the users who don't realise there are other ways to get the images. Which is basically the maximum protection possible given that you want to serve the images at all, and does cover a large part of the threat. If nothing else, by making people work harder than right-click / save as, they're deterring the lazy casual user who wouldn't mind snagging a copy but can't be bothered putting any effort into it.

    You could also make the images the background images of sized table cells, or put transparent images in front of them so right-clicking gets the transparent image instead of the real image.


    Both of these have the advantage of not interfering with the other functions on the right-click menu



  • @Random832 said:

    You could also make the images the background images of sized table cells, or put transparent images in front of them so right-clicking gets the transparent image instead of the real image.


    Both of these have the advantage of not interfering with the other functions on the right-click menu

    Agreed.  And the transparent image trick also has the advantage of annoying the fsck out of those of us who run NoScript, because clicking on the transparent images or otherwise interacting with them activates NoScript's click jacking defenses, and pulls down a big warning dialog.  This is probably the most annoying feature in NoScript - I like that it protects me from actual click jacking, but I'd like it to do so in a less intrusive manner.

    Yes, that's right, I *have* a real browser, I've *disabled* part of its functionality, and I'm complaining about people who've written bad code that I'm immune to, because of the functionality that I disabled, and suggesting that it'd be better if they did a simpler technique to protect their IP that would cause me more problems.  Is that a problem?

    Edit: (Just for the record, yes, I would prefer they use the background image technique.  Not only does my browser in its partially disabled state like it better, but I think it's fricking cool.  Background music, on the other hand, is... poorly conceived.)



  • How affiliated?



  • This post is just for the people who've forgotten about this thread and now are getting email notifications for a thread they don't recall posting in.



  • Guilty as charged:

    1) The previous employees did use FrontPage and we just re-used it as is... and above author was affiliated how? Hopefully not the FP author?

    2) The Image Page is simply a cheap and simple short cut without embedding it in Flash (cannot afford it yet)

    3) The missing links still awaits promised literature input from our Communications Director?

    4) The big secret is doing something or even anything with very little to no budget (anyone been there yet?)

    PS: I do like the image overlay idea (will use this myself as time allows) and my favorite is javascripting in DOM (now there's power in them pages) using SQL stored procedures to build display containers with embedded AJAX javascripting (anyone been there yet?)

    @exAffiliate said:

    I use to be "affiliated" with this company, decided to check out their website to see how they're progressing.

    Enjoy... www.guy-tek.com



  • If you are unable to afford any of the 10 bucks a month fully hosted, fully installed, CMS solutions out there, then you should probably just close your business right now and get a job so you can start making money.
    A free wordpress.com blog would be a better site then you have now.



  • @stratos said:

    If you are unable to afford any of the 10 bucks a month fully hosted, fully installed, CMS solutions out there, then you should probably just close your business right now and get a job so you can start making money.
    A free wordpress.com blog would be a better site then you have now.

    I agree and have asked our none techies with time on their hands to do exactly that!

    After all, it’s just about using a simple template to display basic company information, much like your site?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>


  • Wordpress is never a better choice.



  • @bannedfromcoding said:

    Wordpress is never a better choice.

    It's a better choice than this!



  • This actually reminds me of a company I [url=http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/11221/194126.aspx#194126]almost worked for[/url], only that they had a fetish for pure Flash sites and AFAIK up to this day it remains their core business, with the difference that they actually built semi-functional stuff, although maintenance/updates are virtually non-existent.



  • @coachjames said:

    @stratos said:

    If you are unable to afford any of the 10 bucks a month fully hosted, fully installed, CMS solutions out there, then you should probably just close your business right now and get a job so you can start making money.
    A free wordpress.com blog would be a better site then you have now.

    I agree and have asked our none techies with time on their hands to do exactly that!

    After all, it’s just about using a simple template to display basic company information, much like your site?

    Yes.

    For the most part these kind of corporate sites are just slightely more advanced yellow pages. Nobody actually bothers reading them beyond "does he/she provide the service I want".  Of course the trick is to let people actually find your site on anything besides your company name, which is what the text should be aiming for. 

    The next part is that users should be able to see if you offer the service they need at soon as possible. In which soon can be defined as less then 5 seconds, perhaps even less then that. If the service they need is described in the body text of paragraph 3 then the conversion rate will be very low if not non-existent.

    The third part is that the design of your site should reflect the market you are trying to serve. If you are going for a high end, high quality, high price market, then your design should reflect the level of quality you provide. If you are going for a bargain segment of the market then a more cheap design might actually help you gain the trust that you are actually cheaper ;)
    Of course, a cheap design doesn't actually have to be cheap in the monetary sense. Because you still want and need a design that helps visitors in reading the stuff you want them to read.

    You may also safely ignore this guy

    @bannedfromcoding said:

    Wordpress is _never_ a better choice.

    Because wordpress is just fine and very userfriendly. I will assume he refers to either the technical implementation of WP or developing for WP, which in the context of your average corportate site or blog is of no consequence what so ever. The important thing is how easy it is to manage and how cheap you can implement it. Not what the quality of code is.

     




  • @stratos said:

    Because wordpress is just fine and very userfriendly. I will assume he refers to either the technical implementation of WP or developing for WP, which in the context of your average corportate site or blog is of no consequence what so ever. The important thing is how easy it is to manage and how cheap you can implement it. Not what the quality of code is.
     

    +1.



  • @stratos said:

    Of course the trick is to let people actually find your site on anything besides your company name, which is what the text should be aiming for. 

    The next part is that users should be able to see if you offer the service they need at soon as possible. In which soon can be defined as less then 5 seconds

    (...)

    The third part is that the design of your site should reflect the market you are trying to serve.

     

     

    +1 QFT


Log in to reply
 

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