I don’t normally do his. I am certainly no web site developer or graphic designer, but this page was so awful I just had to.
Fair warning, there is blatant use of tables, gifs, buttons, oh yeah, and adds!
Judge for yourself, but be warned, it’s probably the worst website I have ever seen.
Ok, I’ll bite - why is it bad?
Did ya look? I also did list the reasons I thought it was bad.
Fair warning, there is blatant use of tables, gifs, buttons, oh yeah, and adds!
My eyes didn’t know where to go. It was overload. Way to much going on.
Here is a screenshot of what I mean.
http://www.zimagez.com/miniature/screenshot-06022014-060517am.php](http://www.zimagez.com/zimage/screenshot-06022014-060517am.php)
may I suggest a visit to ophthalmologist? seriously, or even neurologist.
if you had issues looking at this site it might be a symptom of eye or brain disorder of some sort.
unless you where simply sarcastic when you said that.
with all do respect, that was not the worst site I have seen, not even by a long long shot.
it was some what busy and attention getting, but not the worst design I came across in the last month or so.
you want to see bad design, go check out ZD NET site.
now that is worth of a horror movie title, it anyone ever decide to shoot one.
by comparison , your linked site was light weight, not overly busy and had none of the pop-ups and videos that play even if you block the pop-up and add-ons.
it does not have the floating windows and pop-ups that blank out half, if not most" of the main page just because they can.
or a floating side bars that do the same for no other reason but just because they can.
PS>> like your sig. 
but I think the better question would be
not “IF it can be done?” but “**Should **it be done at all?” 
I was not joking, and I have had my eyes checked. Just recently in fact. Neurologically, I am fine as well. In my opinion,that was the worst website I have ever seen. I have been to zdnet and didn’t find it that bad.
Ouch! yeah, it’s bad. It isn’t the worst, but it’s definitely not good. And it is no better with AdBlock Plus running, either! 
I was in a site last night that would modify files for you and then allow you to download an MP3 extract from it and the site had advertisements with “Download” buttons on them above and bellow the actual, just textual download link.
I tried to use the site as a lesson for my son to make sure the link you click on is the one you want, and the dirty attempt by advertisers (and hackers) to get you to click on their links.
I’ve seen worse.
It was relatively tame, running “noscript” on firefox. I assume it is nastier if I allow scripting.
On 2014-06-02, Jonathan R <Jonathan_R@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> http://linux-audio.com/
>
> Judge for yourself, but be warned, it’s probably the worst website I
> have ever seen.
Promising! But just let me correct you:
> Linux audio
>
> Judge for yourself, but be warned, it’s probably the worst thing in Linux I have ever seen.
:).
I looked and I get it - but to me, this “bad” web page is nothing compared to banking sites, where one can’t find simple stuff such as where the phone number is or the routing number list. Stuff that you actually need to know.
I get what you’re saying and even agree with you on that, but the difference between what I am talking about and what you are talking about is, with the banking sites, it’s intentional. They hide the phone number to discourage you from calling because staffing reps is more expensive than a web site. Hiding your routing number and account number would be for security reasons. These are intentional design decisions. The web site I showed, it was lack of good designed understanding. It was like they were trying to show off everything they could do all on one page; javascript, tables, frames, gifs, jpegs, just all kinds of stuff. It’s not like they didn’t think about it. You can tell they did. But they had no understanding of web design, and like I said, it was like they were trying to show off everything they knew in one page. That’s my assessment.
On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 12:26:02 +0000, Jonathan R wrote:
> I don’t normally do his. I am certainly no web site developer or graphic
> designer, but this page was so awful I just had to.
>
> Fair warning, there is blatant use of tables, gifs, buttons, oh yeah,
> and adds!
>
> http://linux-audio.com/
>
> Judge for yourself, but be warned, it’s probably the worst website I
> have ever seen.
It’s pretty bad, but not as bad as:
(Of course, this one is for a fictional company in a BBC radio series, so
it’s intended to be bad)
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
Back in the 90s I worked for a web filtering service, tagging the content of sites. Everybody had a website at the time, with MIDIs, GIFs, mouse tails; most of them didn’t have any coherent theme. Some of them offered to design sites professionally! Eventually MySpace and social media came along, and Yahoo shut down Geocities. If you want to see real bad design, go to archive.org and check some of those old geocities sites.
On 2014-06-02 18:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It’s pretty bad, but not as bad as:
>
> http://rbreu.de/mjn/
>
> (Of course, this one is for a fictional company in a BBC radio series, so
> it’s intended to be bad)
There are lots like that, and for real. Where I live, folks make a
living from convincing, say, a junkyard to put up a web page because it
is good for business. With an email for contact that is broken because
the mailbox is full, because they don’t have a computer, it is broken,
or simply they don’t use new fancy modern things as email. What’s wrong
with the phone or the fax?
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” at Telcontar)
On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 17:13:06 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> There are lots like that, and for real.
Oh, yes, I know. It’s just that when someone says “this is a bad
website”, MJN Air’s website always comes to mind now for me. 
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
On 2014-06-02 19:18, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 17:13:06 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
>> There are lots like that, and for real.
>
> Oh, yes, I know. It’s just that when someone says “this is a bad
> website”, MJN Air’s website always comes to mind now for me.
Ah, I see.
Yes, it has some “cute” errors
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” at Telcontar)
On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 12:26:02 GMT, Jonathan R
<Jonathan_R@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
>
>I don’t normally do his. I am certainly no web site developer or graphic
>designer, but this page was so awful I just had to.
>
>Fair warning, there is blatant use of tables, gifs, buttons, oh yeah,
>and adds!
>
>http://linux-audio.com/
>
>Judge for yourself, but be warned, it’s probably the worst website I
>have ever seen.
Yea, that is pretty bad. At least i can see whose scripts it wants with
NoScript, not so bad. No ugly cookies though. Stupid ugly color choices
and that idiot color changing banner.
Recently i have seen worse. 50 different 3 party scripts, unannounced
requirements for flash cookies, tracker scripts and more. Utterly
unusable unless you wish to give away your life history to them. Needless
to say i reported them as attack sites.
?-/