I don't know if it's ironic or appropriate that I should start off this little series of essays with a gripe session about web sites. (Maybe it's both- I've found that the two are not always mutually exclusive.) But I have some bones to pick with some of the web developers out there, and now is as good a time as any to speak my mind.

First of all, I'm no professional and don't pretend to be, and I realize that my own site isn't perfect. I've only had true web access since June (though I've been online since 1991), and began learning HTML in August. (Author's Note: This essay was written in February 1998.) But perhaps the fact that I'm such a newcomer gives me a more objective view than some "professionals" hold, because in the few months I've been a visitor I've noticed a number of glaring annoyances in the way many pages are laid out. And I'm not just talking about individual, personal pages- those I can understand. But I've seen some of these mistakes on the pages of large corporations, organizations, and universities.

So here, in no particular order, are my top ten web site gripes:

1) Not using ALT text tags. There are many, MANY of us out here who, due to slow machines or time constraints, sometimes surf with the image-loading option off. There are few things more frustrating than a page full of "missing image" icons- and nothing else. I have no clue what those buttons do, and will move on to another site. (A further suggestion: Include the image size within the tag. If they're of reasonable size, I'll probably load them.)

2) Not using relative sizes in tables. Many people seem to assume that everyone is browsing the Web at the same resolution, and that's not true. If you size your table for a high resolution display, those of us with lower res can't view it without scrolling sideways, whereas tables that use percentages in the WIDTH tags will resize themselves to fit any screen. If you choose to hard-code table widths, code for a 640x480 display. The millions of surfers still using plain ol' VGA monitors will thank you for it.

3) Light text on light backgrounds, or vice- versa. I've yet to see a site so compelling that I was willing to risk a headache by trying to read yellow text on a white background. (The same goes for practically any color of text on a busy background.)

4) Image maps with no alternatives. Image maps look great, but they can be a nightmare for those of us surfing without loading images. And, believe it or not, there are still people who CAN'T load images, so they can't access your information at all. It's not all that hard to add a section at the bottom with plain old links to the same stuff.

5) Sites that always open new windows for outside links instead of linking directly. There are times when this is appropriate, but most of the time I feel that the author is manipulating me and trying to keep me from leaving. As a result, I usually leave immediately-- even if the site was otherwise useful or interesting. Unfortunately, this practice is becoming more and more common (In a class I took last spring, we were specifically instructed to do it.), and I believe it's ruining the free-flowing nature of the Web.

6) Multiple spelling and grammar errors. If you can't be bothered to proofread your site prior to publication (or have someone else do it), it's unlikely that I'd trust you to do anything else professionally.

7) Sites that are obviously "Under Construction". It's okay for sites to BE under construction; ideally, ALL sites are constantly being changed and updated. But that's no excuse for being messy. Close off areas that are being worked on. If NOTHING on your site is complete, it shouldn't be accessible yet. You may think you're giving us a glimpse of what's to come so that we'll return later, but, in my case at least, you're wasting my time and I'm unlikely to give you another chance. There are too many other good sites out there.

8) Having to click through several "pre"-screens before getting to any actual content. You know the kind of sites I mean- the ones that provide a link to something that sounds really cool, but then force you to go through two or three (or more!) screens of descriptions and such before you can get to it. I have a short attention span- if I have to go through more than one of these, I usually leave.

9) Not specifying a separate color for visited links. This isn't too much of a problem on pages with only a few links, but when a page has a few DOZEN links it's almost impossible to keep track of which ones I've visited and which ones I haven't when they're all the same color.

10) Icons without labels. It may be obvious to YOU that the little smiley face means "Back to my home page", but it may not be obvious to ME unless you label it.

11) Sites that try to tell me what browser I should be using. Worse yet, sites that are designed for one specific browser. There are not that many differences between the two major browsers; making your site compatible with both isn't a lot to ask. I simply don't understand developers who knowingly shut out a large percentage of their potential market simply because of what browser they choose.

12) Bad CGI scripting. How many times has this happened to you? You spend ten or fifteen minutes filling out a long form, you submit it, and then you get a message saying that you skipped a question and have to go back and fill it in. So you go back- and realize that you have to fill out the ENTIRE FORM ALL OVER AGAIN! This is one of the most infuriating problems on the Web-- and it could be solved if programmers just knew what they were doing...

13) Underlined words that aren't hyperlinks. This one was sent in by a reader, and I agree with it. There are times when it's proper to underline non-links (when citing the title of a book, for example), but most of the time it serves no other purpose than to confuse and frustrate the reader.

14) Sites that preload the entire page before anything appears on the screen. This is a relatively new phenomenon and I understand why people use it. After all, it certainly looks more impressive to have the page appear all at once than to watch it download piece by piece. My gripe is with graphics-heavy sites that use this technique, thus requiring the viewer to sit and watch a blank screen for two minutes or more before they are allowed to see anything. I'm not that patient; if I don't see SOMETHING in the first 15 or 20 seconds, I move on. I suspect many others are the same way, not to mention the ones who simply assume that the page doesn't work at all and go elsewhere. (Call me slow, but I did that several times before I caught on to what was going on.)

15) Java. More specifically, unnecessary Java, which, in my opinion, covers most of the Java on the Web. After about the hundredth time I sat and waited (forever) for a Java applet to load just to realize that it was a stupid flashing light (bouncing ball, whatever) that could have been done better with an animated GIF, I disabled the Java capabilities of all of my browsers. That was months ago, and I still don't feel like I'm missing anything. From what I can tell, the Java on most people's sites exists simply to tell the world, "Look! I know Java! Aren't I cool?"

Authors Note: Since I first posted this essay a year and a half ago, I've received a lot of feedback (both good and bad) about it from readers. And that was exactly what I intended when I wrote it. :) Many of these people have contributed their own Web Site Gripes to the list and have graciously given me permission to use them, so I've started a new page for them. If you'd like to read what annoys other people or if you have Gripes of your own, check out the Reader's Gripes page.

Want a printable copy of this essay? Download the MS Word version (.doc) of this essay here.

Top of Page