WebPagesThatSuck.com - suckiness tests, part 2

The second part of the translation test for slop site. The first part is available here . Today, the conversation will be about text, links, as well as graphics, video and audio.

Let's start.

Text and links

• Texts on our website are written in different sizes.
• On our site texts are written in different color fonts.
• To read the text on our site, people need to download some unusual font .
• It is difficult for visitors to read our texts, because the font is very small
• On our site TOO MANY CAPS.
• Texts on our site flash, flash and move.
• The contrast analyzer believes that the text, links and background on our site are not sufficiently contrasted.
• AccessColor believes that the color scheme of our site is hardly perceived by visitors.
• On our site, centered text is used not only in the headers.
• The text on our site is dropped in width.
• We use browser-specific tags, for example, <MARQUEE> (I found out what this tag is - horror!, Comment. Per.)
• We use fonts that do not fit the audience of the site - such as Comic Sans on the site of the city mayor’s office.
• Using JavaScript, we scroll through various texts in the status bar.
• There is too much text on our site.
• We use underlined text on our site (except to highlight links).
• On our site there are vertical or otherwise expanded texts.
• Visited links on our site do not change color. (all! 90% of sites - sucks :), comment. per.)
• Links to the site are highlighted implicitly.
• There are too many links in some areas of the site pages.
• There are too many links on our site.
• We have broken links on our site.
• We have broken links on our site and / or there is no page with the 404th error.
• There are a lot of complex URLs on our site (which ones? What comment?)
• Links on our site consist of 10-20 words (yeah, type http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/does-my-web-site-suck/does-my-web-site-suck-checklist-part-one. html :), comment. per.)
• The addresses of pages on our site are not sufficiently informative.

Graphics, Video and Audio

• The logo of our site is made unprofessionally.
• The logo on the site is just a poor-quality scan of our business card.
• The logo is not above ... (Logo is not above the fold - who will say what fold means in this context, I will be very grateful to him, comment. Per.)
• The logo is not present in the top of all pages of our site, and does not always lead to the main page.
• Keep your own graphic elements away from advertising banners (especially if they are located in the top). Visitors often ignore banners, and at the same time can ignore your graphics.
• Our website uses cheap clip art instead of high-quality graphics.
• On our site there are horizontal dividing blocks.
  
• On the site we use large, full-size images.
• The graphics on our site diverts attention from, actually, the pages.
• Our site automatically loads the video files, instead of starting the download after the user clicks.
• Our site uses a trailing-cursor (what is the trailing cursor? Comment per.)
• Our site uses IE page transitions (what is “page transitions”, “page transitions”? Comment. Per.)
• On our site there are icons such as "is in development"
• Placing graphics on the site, we do not reduce the images using a graphical editor. Instead, we take a full-size image of 1200x800 pixels, and change its size using the attributes of the IMG tag.
• Our site uses graphics for text.
• Our site has an ugly color scheme (for example, red and green). (HA! Www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/130/#06 , comment . Per .)
• Graphic icons on the site are not logical. Our shopping cart is not like a shopping cart.
• Instead of calling it a basket, we come up with some other wacky term, such as “basket”, “box”. (Actually, there is a special term in English - a shopping card, and the author contrasts it with a basket. For Russia, this specific advice is irrelevant, but I think the principle is clear. Approx. Per.)
• There is unreasonably a lot of animation on our site.
• The site has a bunch of animated gifs.
• On the site we use 3-D graphics.
• We use images with gradients on the site (hmm ..., comment. Per.)
• On the site we use recessed or beveled images.
• On the site we use images with shadows (hmmm ..., comment. Per.).
• The site has animated graphics, from the flickering of which visitors begin to seizures.
• As the background of the site, an image is used that begins to be duplicated on large screens.
• The image in the background doesn’t contrast enough with the text and is hard to read.
• Figures on our site do not have the ALT attribute filled with text, and if the text is not required, the attribute does not contain ''.
• Images on the site are similar to banner ads.
• The site uses moving graphic elements - such as snowflakes, birds, and other DHTML-Labuda.
• We do not use text color to enhance meaning — for example, red says “this is important.”
• Nobody thought about whether the color scheme of the site doesn’t target visitors of other nationalities against us.
• Pages of our site have many different colored areas.
• On our site there are adjacent blocks of incompatible colors (such as red and green).
• The pages of our site are one large image-map (for those that do not know, this is an image with active areas, which, most often, are links, perm. Per.).
• The site has images that suffer from a “halo effect” - an ugly, blurry halo around the image.

That's all for today. I feel this part contains even more controversial points. However, it is full of those that, I think, is worth memorizing by heart, especially for novice designers who are delighted with animation, DHTML and JavaScript.
')
The third part of the test is available to everyone.