WebPagesThatSuck.com suckiness tests part 3

I present to you the third part of the tests for slop design. The first part of the test was published on the “I Am Smart” blog, and met with the approval of the public. The second part, published in the Design blog, caused much more objective criticism. Basically, it was stated that this test concerns usability more than design. Well, with the third part of the test, I suggest to familiarize the audience of this blog. Today we will talk about navigation and content.

By the way, I recommend to get acquainted with the first part, there is a preface of the author of the test, which, perhaps, will allow you to treat the content of the test with great condescension.

Navigation

• We made a navigation system that meets our requirements, not the requirements of visitors.
• We understand how the navigation system works on our website, and therefore we believe that everyone else may understand it.
• We have a page or popup window explaining how navigation works.
• Navigation on the site should tell where you are, where you should go, and how to return to the main page. Navigation of our site does not report this.
• Our site uses the Mystery Finding navigation. (in the original - "Mysterious meat product" :), comment. )
• The site uses Flash navigation.
• A man from Mars could not quickly deal with our navigation system.
• Despite the fact that people do not want to deal with the new navigation system at all, we still made our own, original one.
• Our site uses JavaScript in the navigation system, and at the same time does not "fall" to those with JavaScript disabled.
• On our site, the navigation menu is on its side , or located at an angle.
• We use all sorts of stupid buzzwords like "stuff" in the navigation system, or "Start" instead of "Home."
• On the main page of our site there are no links to popular content.
• Navigation on the site is not visible without scrolling.
• Instead of being predictable, the navigation on our site is completely inconsistent.
• Instead of being predictable, the location of the navigation varies from page to page.
• Content on the site is not divided into logical categories and subcategories.
• The names of categories and subcategories are incomprehensible and not mutually exclusive.
• Our links are highlighted implicitly, and do not make it clear where they are going.
• Our links are highlighted implicitly, do not make it clear where they are going, and call for "Click here . " (not worth it :), comment. per.)
• Some / all pages of our site require horizontal scrolling.
• On our site navigation is done in Java. (I think there are applets, comment. per.)
• Graphic icons used in navigation, have a different size, color, style.
• On our site you need more than three clicks to get the necessary information.
• We do not give visitors the opportunity to sign up for expensive seminars (it seems to mean, “place an order”, etc., comment. Per.)

Content

• We do not know what content is popular.
• Content on the site is not organized for the needs of visitors.
• Content is not divided into logical categories.
• Our content is incomprehensible to ordinary people, because it is full of advertising, jargon or obscure abbreviations.
• Our content does not cling, or not relevant, or careless, or not true, or not complete.
• I don’t know if our content fits our target audience.
• Yes, our content really does not match the target audience.
• We do not mark non-HTML content (such as Excel documents, Power Point).
• The content for our site is not written for the web, but for print publications, and we just put it on the site.
• Our content is written at a level lower or higher than the level of knowledge of our visitors.
• Our pages are too long. We have forgotten that Internet users are very superficial.
• There is no “Heroin” content on our site (Heroin Content, the most interesting and regularly updated, catchy content, comment.)
• Part of our content, graphic or text, visitors may find offensive.
• Some of our content, graphic or textual, can be considered radical or politically incorrect.
• Foreign visitors may find some of our content, graphic or textual, offensive.
• We didn’t hire an editor to check spelling, punctuation, capitalization and content in general.
• We didn’t check if we’ve cut all the text or graphic “Lorem ipsum” plugs from our site, especially from the titles.
• Our site has content that our visitors do not need to know . (I do not recommend to watch the link, comment. per.)
• It seems to us that the site has important information that neither the public nor the competitors should see.
• The main page contains our mission, or the link is not her (except for non-profit organizations).
• The site has sections in development, and our visitors have access to them.
• Different sections of our site look different.
• Our site does not have a page with a policy for working with personal information (privacy or legal statement, comment per.).
• The content on the site was made in Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, etc., and then converted to HTML.
• Our site has outdated information.
• On our site, the lines contain too many words, they are difficult to read.
• On our website, the lines contain too few words that prevent them from reading.