Apocalyptically Bad



  • Our web designer is giving some clients a presentation today about best practices in web design. He intends to show off this as an example of what not to do:

    http://www.havenworks.com/



  •  Oh, god, it burned itself into my retinas!



  • If you think that's bad, he just told me he's found one worse. This took about 70 seconds to load for me, making 81 requests for 33.76 MB of content. Enjoy.

     



  •  GeoCities lives on!



  •  @Someone You Know said:

    If you think that's bad, he just told me he's found one worse. This took about 70 seconds to load for me, making 81 requests for 33.76 MB of content. Enjoy.

     

    I think we just fucked up his server by visiting it thrice.



  • @dhromed said:

     @Someone You Know said:

    If you think that's bad, he just told me he's found one worse. This took about 70 seconds to load for me, making 81 requests for 33.76 MB of content. Enjoy.

     

    I think we just fucked up his server by visiting it thrice.

    you fool, you have to sacrifice a chicken BEFORE viewing the page.



  • @Someone You Know said:

    If you think that's bad, he just told me he's found one worse. This took about 70 seconds to load for me, making 81 requests for 33.76 MB of content. Enjoy.

    http://belladesoto.us/

     

    Wow. Twenty minutes and loading... (and, no, I'm not using a 56k modem).

    That is by far the worst site I've ever seen.



  • I've never come so close to an
    epileptic seizure.

    I'm still not convinced that "havenworks.com" isn't some sort of joke. If this is a genuine site then I nominate it for Most F'd Up Site of the Year. The "belladesoto.us" site appears to be almost as bad and I'm still waiting for that to fully load even after 15 minutes. So far it appears to the ramblings of a single individual whereas "havenworks.com" appears to making a poor attempt at presenting themselves as some sort of news site. For that reason I'd nominate "havenworks.com" over "belladesoto.us", but it's a close call.

    <meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.0 (Win32)"><style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style>

    Thanks, now I need to get some some asprin...

     



  • @Ilya Ehrenburg said:

    @Someone You Know said:

    If you think that's bad, he just told me he's found one worse. This took about 70 seconds to load for me, making 81 requests for 33.76 MB of content. Enjoy.

    http://belladesoto.us/

     

    Wow. Twenty minutes and loading... (and, no, I'm not using a 56k modem).

    That is by far the worst site I've ever seen.

    I had to close out Firefox with the Task manager because it locked up.



  • It loaded quickly for me, but it still sucks. Funny thing is, waaay at the bottom, the web designer has proudly signed the page.



  • @DeepThought said:

    I'm still not convinced that "havenworks.com" isn't some sort of joke.

    If not a joke, then at least intentionally bad (and proud of it).  Scroll down near the bottom:


    <center><font color="#990000"><font size="+1">HavenWorks.com has been
    an Aesthetically Challenged News Website Since 1998</font></font>


    <font color="#ff0000">hrrmph !-) Awarded for</font> "Worst Web Site
    of 2008 [1st Place]" by
    WebPagesThatSuck.com

    "The Web's Most Useless Sites [2nd place]" by PCWorld
    "El peor diseño del mundo" by
    elMundo.es

    "The Worst Designed Site on the Web" of 2008 by Digg.com

    The BBC.co.uk
    asks "How not to design a website?" "It defies words" says
    Heather
    Cotten


    Croatian :
    "necim zastrašujucim"
    Dutch:
    "Guantanamo bay voor je ogen"


    French:
    "les plus horribles!"
    German:
    "die schlechtesten Webseiten"


    Greek:
    "[untranslatable]"
    Italian:
    "il peggior sito web"


    Portuguese:
    "obra de arte!"
    Spanish:
    "El peor sitio web del universo"


    "made me cry out in horror" says Crawford
    Kilian
    "“White Space” Challenged" says Hafner

    and "Most Poorly Designed Website in the World" of 2007 by Digg.com

    <font size="-1">[ HavenWorks.com is not responsible for loss of vision,
    disorientation, or headaches from visual overload :-|</font>

    <font size="-1">[[ Aesthetically HavenWorks was meant more as a Mondrian,
    we apologize that it comes off more like a Jackson
    Pollock
    ]]</font></center>

     



  • @amischiefr said:

    I had to close out Firefox with the Task manager because it locked up.
     

    Firefox is doing fine, about 70% CPU, 22.9% memory, still loading.

    I tried [url]http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fbelladesoto.us&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0[/url] and got a 500 Internal Server Error twice, I guess it's too horrible, the w3c parser prefers to die :)

    The havenworks got

    @w3cValidator said:

    2912 Errors, 42 warning(s)



  • @cconroy said:

    If not a joke, then at least intentionally bad (and proud of it).  Scroll down near the bottom:

    <font color="#990000"><font size="+1">HavenWorks.com has been
    an Aesthetically Challenged News Website Since 1998</font></font>


    <font color="#ff0000">hrrmph !-) Awarded for</font> "Worst Web Site
    of 2008 [1st Place]" by
    WebPagesThatSuck.com

    "The Web's Most Useless Sites [2nd place]" by PCWorld
    "El peor diseño del mundo" by
    elMundo.es

    "The Worst Designed Site on the Web" of 2008 by Digg.com

    The BBC.co.uk
    asks "How not to design a website?" "It defies words" says
    Heather
    Cotten


    Croatian :
    "necim zastrašujucim"
    Dutch:
    "Guantanamo bay voor je ogen"


    French:
    "les plus horribles!"
    German:
    "die schlechtesten Webseiten"


    Greek:
    "[untranslatable]"
    Italian:
    "il peggior sito web"


    Portuguese:
    "obra de arte!"
    Spanish:
    "El peor sitio web del universo"


    "made me cry out in horror" says Crawford
    Kilian
    "“White Space” Challenged" says Hafner

    and "Most Poorly Designed Website in the World" of 2007 by Digg.com

    <font size="-1">[ HavenWorks.com is not responsible for loss of vision,
    disorientation, or headaches from visual overload :-|</font>

    <font size="-1">[[ Aesthetically HavenWorks was meant more as a Mondrian,
    we apologize that it comes off more like a Jackson
    Pollock
    ]]</font>

     

    Now that is funny.  At least they know that they suck.



  • @Ilya Ehrenburg said:

    @Someone You Know said:

    If you think that's bad, he just told me he's found one worse. This took about 70 seconds to load for me, making 81 requests for 33.76 MB of content. Enjoy.

    http://belladesoto.us/

     

    Wow. Twenty minutes and loading... (and, no, I'm not using a 56k modem).

    That is by far the worst site I've ever seen.

     

    Fortunately it has a clock on it, so you can keep track of how long it takes to load.



  • Havenworks was used as an example of bad design practices in my introductory software engineering class last fall heh.



  •  @Someone You Know said:

    Our web designer is giving some clients a presentation today about best practices in web design. He intends to show off this as an example of what not to do:

    http://www.havenworks.com/

     

    hey! what a cool effect! am I the only one who now wants them to write a tutorial "How to make your page 'slide in' - without using javascript" ?



  • @Someone You Know said:

    Our web designer is giving some clients a presentation today about best practices in web design. He intends to show off this as an example of what not to do:

    http://www.havenworks.com/

     

    That is almost physically painful to look at.

    My badly designed site example is this one, and as far as I know it's not intentional and / or "revelling in poor design". Not nearly as bad as Haven works, but still an affront to my eyes.



  • @PhillS said:

    @Someone You Know said:

    Our web designer is giving some clients a presentation today about best practices in web design. He intends to show off this as an example of what not to do:

    http://www.havenworks.com/

     

    That is almost physically painful to look at.

    My badly designed site example is this one, and as far as I know it's not intentional and / or "revelling in poor design". Not nearly as bad as Haven works, but still an affront to my eyes.

     

     

    Even if it's not intentionally bad, someone has presumably seen that page and said, "yes, that's exactly how we want our web site to look!".  Weeps



  • @SEMI-HYBRID code said:

     @Someone You Know said:

    Our web designer is giving some clients a presentation today about best practices in web design. He intends to show off this as an example of what not to do:

    http://www.havenworks.com/

     

    hey! what a cool effect! am I the only one who now wants them to write a tutorial "How to make your page 'slide in' - without using javascript" ?

     

     

    ROFL. Oh yes please.

     

    Then again... totally evil abuse of jQuery:

    [url]http://labs.bitmeister.jp/moamoa/english.html[/url]



  • The http://belladesoto.us/ usesa badly positioned clock, I can always scroll a bit further down :)



  • @Cantabrigian said:

    My badly designed site example is this one
    I like how they decided they didn't want to use the contents of /includes/js/troll_test.js - and decided to wrap the whole file with /* ... */ instead of commenting the <script> tag.



  • This is like bad korean interface meets web, seduces odd asian fellow, has babies on the internet, blinds many many Many people.



  • Before.

    After.


    Just look and let it sink in for a bit. Be sure you have your sound on.



  • @Gigalith said:

    After.
    Screenshots of Blender are totally appropriate for a bridal shop's website!



  • @Someone You Know said:

    If you think that's bad, he just told me he's found one worse. This took about 70 seconds to load for me, making 81 requests for 33.76 MB of content. Enjoy.

    http://belladesoto.us/

     

     

     

    Scroll down, 2/3 of the website is blank space.



  • @PhillS said:

    My badly designed site example is this one, and as far as I know it's not intentional and / or "revelling in poor design". Not nearly as bad as Haven works, but still an affront to my eyes.

     

    Hey, it's

    THE UK's FAVOURITE
    CAR LEASING WEBSITE!



  • @Ilya Ehrenburg said:

    @PhillS said:

    My badly designed site example is this one, and as far as I know it's not intentional and / or "revelling in poor design". Not nearly as bad as Haven works, but still an affront to my eyes.

     

    Hey, it's

    THE UK's FAVOURITE
    CAR LEASING WEBSITE!

    Hey, with consistent text sizing like that, it's got to be good.



  • @Ilya Ehrenburg said:

    @PhillS said:

    My badly designed site example is this one, and as far as I know it's not intentional and / or "revelling in poor design". Not nearly as bad as Haven works, but still an affront to my eyes.

     

    Hey, it's

    THE UK's FAVOURITE
    CAR LEASING WEBSITE!

    Perhaps, but you've got to ask yourself how many UK websites have achieved sentience and have a good enough credit rating for a dealer to lease them a car.



  • @Ilya Ehrenburg said:

    Firefox is doing fine, about 70% CPU, 22.9% memory, still loading.

    Safari did a bit worse on my P4 work desky... took about 5 minutes to get to 500 items in Window>Activity and I just gave up.

    [img]http://temp.wilcox-tech.com/archive-2009oct/holycow3.png[/img]



  • When Chromium started asking me if I wanted to raw open DivX files, I started getting wary. When it asked "would you like to download the file "XkyzzqMegaClockForIE.exe"?" I went "KILL IT KILL IT WITH FIREEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

    Also, @CorgiDude, SSHFS? For Windows?



  •  Yooooo! So this is where all the wtf visitors to my site over the past couple of days spawn?

     How on EARTH can people be so daft as to suggest all text should be the same size and that there are "rules" that websites should stick to? How can people push the boundaries and make websites that people LIKE to visit if you don't experiment?

     Please can one of the boring-compliance officers point me to the O'Reilly car-leasing-website-design-rulebook I should stick to. Today I will be adding Mr T to my website. I await the horror and shock and awe. Hahahaha.



  • @LINGsCARS said:

     Yooooo! So this is where all the wtf visitors to my site over the past couple of days spawn?

     How on EARTH can people be so daft as to suggest all text should be the same size and that there are "rules" that websites should stick to? How can people push the boundaries and make websites that people LIKE to visit if you don't experiment?

     Please can one of the boring-compliance officers point me to the O'Reilly car-leasing-website-design-rulebook I should stick to. Today I will be adding Mr T to my website. I await the horror and shock and awe. Hahahaha.

     

     

    Hello Ling,

    This is Peter Jones.  I have seen your website, i am have to say, i am OUT.

     Best regards and i like your rocket.

    //Peter



  • Oh, so that page is about car leasing? I was not able to extract information from, say, THE PAGE ITSELF. You failed.



  • Right. A member with an Apple logo. That says just about everything we all need to know. If people cannot cope with some bright colours and a bit of flashing, then you must be a) epileptic, b) colour-sensitive, c) a Mac user. 

     

    You seem to be the latter type.

     

    The other 115,000 unique visitors/mth and 600,000 page views/mth and the people who had £35 million of new cars delivered from my website (with no other route to market) in 2008 must be extremely colour blind.



  • @LINGsCARS said:

    The other 115,000 unique visitors/mth and 600,000 page views/mth and the people who had £35 million of new cars delivered from my website (with no other route to market) in 2008 must be extremely colour blind.

     

    That is a possibility. If the site attracts customers,  good for you.

    But as far as I'm concerned, you'd have to offer [b]a lot[/b] more value for money than the competition to make me endure that site.



  • @Indrora said:

    Also, @CorgiDude, SSHFS? For Windows?

    How is that so strange?  He's also got a few PuTTY terminals going, so clearly he works with unix machines.  You notice sshfs, but neglect to mention that he's running Safari on Win7?  I mean, Christ, who the fuck runs Safari on Windows to begin with?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Indrora said:

    Also, @CorgiDude, SSHFS? For Windows?

    How is that so strange?  He's also got a few PuTTY terminals going, so clearly he works with unix machines.  You notice sshfs, but neglect to mention that he's running Safari on Win7?  I mean, Christ, who the fuck runs Safari on Windows to begin with?

    A masochist?



  • @DescentJS said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @Indrora said:

    Also, @CorgiDude, SSHFS? For Windows?

    How is that so strange?  He's also got a few PuTTY terminals going, so clearly he works with unix machines.  You notice sshfs, but neglect to mention that he's running Safari on Win7?  I mean, Christ, who the fuck runs Safari on Windows to begin with?

    A masochist?

    A webdeveloper who wants to test with all major browsers?

    Oh.. that's what you said.



  • @Zecc said:

     

    A webdeveloper who wants to test with all major browsers?

    Why bother with that?  Just test it in whatever browser you've got on your system, slap a "best when viewed with $BROWSER" image at the bottom, and call it a day.



  • @Zecc said:

    @DescentJS said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @Indrora said:

    Also, @CorgiDude, SSHFS? For Windows?

    How is that so strange?  He's also got a few PuTTY terminals going, so clearly he works with unix machines.  You notice sshfs, but neglect to mention that he's running Safari on Win7?  I mean, Christ, who the fuck runs Safari on Windows to begin with?

    A masochist?

    A webdeveloper who wants to test with all major browsers?

    Oh.. that's what you said.

    Yeah, but it looks as if he's using it as his primary browser.  And as far as testing goes: when did Safari on Windows become a "major browser"?  Opera on Windows probably has it beat.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @morbiuswilters said:

    And as far as testing goes: when did Safari on Windows become a "major browser"?  Opera on Windows probably has it beat.
     

    Google Analytics for the past month on a site I have access to the info on (site is 'non-technical' in nature):

     

    PosBrowser/OSNumber%age
    1Internet Explorer / Windows3,88373.84%
    2Firefox / Windows93617.80%
    3Chrome / Windows 1593.02%
    4Safari / Macintosh941.79%
    5Opera / Windows440.84%
    6Firefox / Macintosh300.57%
    7Firefox / Linux260.49%
    8Mozilla / Linux260.49%
    9Safari / iPhone170.32%
    10Safari / Windows140.27%


  • @morbiuswilters said:

    when did Safari on Windows become a "major browser"?  Opera on Windows probably has it beat.
     

    It's just handy so you don't have to VNC into the token Mac in your office to test some shit on it.



  • @dhromed said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    when did Safari on Windows become a "major browser"?  Opera on Windows probably has it beat.
     

    It's just handy so you don't have to VNC into the token Mac in your office to test some shit on it.

    Ah, I once thought like you.  Then I discovered that Safari on Windows is significantly different enough from Safari on OS X that the former is pretty much useless for inferring results on the latter.  Then I realized that Mac users don't really care if something works or not, they just want it to look shiny and for other people in the coffeeshop to notice their trendiness, non-conformity and comfortable upper-middle class status.  So I just killed Mac support from anything I did and created an iPhone app so Mac users could pay me money for what was free and more usable on other platforms.  Problem solved.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @dhromed said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    when did Safari on Windows become a "major browser"?  Opera on Windows probably has it beat.
     

    It's just handy so you don't have to VNC into the token Mac in your office to test some shit on it.

    Ah, I once thought like you.  Then I discovered that Safari on Windows is significantly different enough from Safari on OS X that the former is pretty much useless for inferring results on the latter. 

     

    yeah, chrome on windows shares more rendering quirks with safari on mac than windows safari does.



  • @Nelle said:

    yeah, chromium shares more rendering quirks with safari on mac than windows safari does.

    FTFY, Chromium runs the really nasty versions of WebKit, IYDAK.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Indrora said:

    IYDAK

    Wot? Google wasn't a lot of use.



  • @PJH said:

    @Indrora said:

    IYDAK

    Wot? Google wasn't a lot of use.

     

    If you didn't already know?





  • @DescentJS said:

    You must be new here.

     

    What tipped you off?



  • ive actually been here a while my account just died


Log in to reply
 

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