Comments on: Five old-fashioned Web concepts that need to die

It's time to bring Web sites into the 21st century, says Webware's Rafe Needleman. Here are a handful of user interface disasters.

[JeffW8]

I disagree with number 3 to an extent. I have different levels of security I care about, and I enjoy having different logins, each with a more secure level depending on the risk involved. This allows me to have a few select passwords that I get to know very well. I would change point three to reflect the following:
* Allow the user to use their email address as the login - at this point in time, it should always be unique to the individual.
* Allow the user to stay logged in on their computer for almost all sites, excluding those that have direct financial consequences. Logging in isn't horrible - logging in several times a day (ie, email) is.

As I voted, and as I see that most others voted, point five is my biggest pet peeve. Google Adwords should be the standard that is followed. I hate the ads you spoke about, and I even hate the ones that don't grow but are very distracting. I sometimes have to cover the ad to enjoy what I wanted to read. That's a huge turnoff.

Great blog! Thanks!

[Lord_webby]

"Why don't Web designers give mobile devices access to their sites?"

Because clients don't want to pay for it.

[jadusty]

Whilst I agree that some sites work better without the concept of save, I believe this whole area is a lot more complex than it appears. Google Apps works using Gears (as well as Ajax) and that puts a small database on your local disc which syncs with the main google server periodically, and hence your local processing power is harnessed to take some of the load off the server. At least this is what I am led to believe. Messing around with Google Sites, this *does* have the concept of a save because it almost requires that the user be able to cancel their changes. I boils down to how you manage your units of work. With many websites taking the brunt of database processing at the server end, large scale web sites would not be able to manage heavy ad-hoc database updates without grouping changes into larger transactions, and that still means for the most part, caching your changes in memory; and possibly at the very most cleverly save your current state if the session cache expires. When you are processing your order on amazon, ebay, etc., is not each step and button you press not a server postback to save the state of your current session. It's just a matter of how you describe a button action.

[kdunbar36]

I agree with all your comments, I just hate going to websites that have this big ad in front of what I want to look at quickly, its stupid.. also, I do realize that advertisers need to make money, but I don't feel that we should be forced into watching commercials every website we go too, if its a video. Because in reality we are only going to buy it if we want it. And so there should be a seperate place to view all of things ads commercials, etc.. and not have them prior to videos, or things like that, when we need something we are going to go and look up information about a product, that is why we have places like my simon, and CNET.com, but to see ads constantly no wonder why anyone wants ads on TV anymore, the market is just overloading everyone on tv ads and magazine ads, and radio ads, and internet ads. I realize they want us to see their products and know whats out there but, we shouldn't have to watch commercials to say hey, I'd like a new such and such let me look up the information on whats available, and for the price. Because thats what people do today, they really don't watch any of the ads, they just walk away until its over (commercials on tv were made in the beginning so that people could get up and get something to eat between a show, or movie) but now it seems like the tv,radio, and internet communities, just want us looking at their commercials, no matter how or what we are doing they just trying to basically choke us to death with all of them. I know some of them are cool and all, but that doesn't mean we are going to go out and buy whatever it is. Times need to change just like tv, radio and the computer has changed.. get with it, I can see on Demand Commercials in a index of commercials, where we can go and look when we need something, but to make us watch them, or listen to them, or view them on the internet just to watch a video is rediculous. And whats worse is that they are getting even tricker at it, by putting them in TV shows, and in games just to make sure we see their product.. why not just make us listen to subliminal messages then, so we all go out and buy their products.. sounds stupid huh... well forcing us to watch ads all the time, is just stupid!! We aren't to blame for not wanting to watch them, its just we've been completely overloaded by them. Give us a break. we don't need to see them on the internet everytime we want to watch a video on youtube, or on a network station while its setting up a video for us to watch!!!

So if there's one thing I hate are advertisements everywhere. Especially during personal time,Where ever that might be...

[maverick_nick]

The one that rubs me the wrong way the most is "Google Docs is superior to Microsoft Office". Now I'm by no means a Microsoft defender, but I've got to point out the lies. Google Docs uses AJAX that saves the document at certain intervals. Microsoft Office saves documents at certain intervals. If you simply close the window between those intervals, every change made after the last save is lost. So how does that make Google Docs superior?

[strimpa]

Hi.
Regarding "One-size-fits-all site design":
I generally like taking a step back and looking at those concepts from another angle. most of them need a revision in sites like news-depending information. However, I really dislike if internet critics take their perspective on usability as the only one that exists. it is a largly subjective thing and regarding the mobile devices, it is very young technically. Webdesigners make huge efforts making such sites reading friendly and CI-confirming. Small screens are not made for the amount of information on such sites and must be clearly separated as a device. Recent platforms like iPhones go another path of not trying to adjust the size but showing just a small portion, which highlights that the industry understood the inpossibility of scaling most websites down by that amount.
Besides the tricky implementation, which applies to most of the issues and shouldn't be thought about on such broad aimed subjects, I can only understand a moan about the readability on news sites on smal screens as ignorance against the made efforts.
Apart from that, as I said earlier, I like the ideas behind all this.
Thanks
Cheers for

[markdoiron]

Multiple menu bars. Looking at this page and there are seven separate menu bars. Seven! Come on, guys, more is not better. C/Net is terrible for placing two or three links to the same content on one page. Clean up that interface.

BTW: Usually I notice how many menu bars a site has when I go in search of either the "search" feature, or "how to contact us". I think website designers delight in hiding that, Here I am trying to do them a favor by letting them know that a link is broken, and they make it nigh impossible to drop them a quick note. --mark d.

[Steve Jordan]

The only one of these that "needs to die" is One-Size-Fits-All content... web pages should be tagged to adjust to the appropriate screen size and maintain 508 compliance.

You want to solve Log-in? Create a universal ID system, like a biometric that every web user inputs to verify ID once and permit access to any and all sites. (We'll wait.)

[islandgirl45cv]

Good ideas, Rafe. Now if this Web site would only register my vote in either Firefox 3 or Safari....

[WaterBreath]

Absolutely hate "blocker ads". One of the top worst kind of ads.

The "save" sentiment, I understand, but it's far more complex than implied by the complaint. Why would I NOT want to be in control of when changes are committed!? If there's going to be a periodic save, it needs to be to a "draft" version, so that changes can be preserved as often as possible WITHOUT overwriting the permanent copy. This prevents me from losing content unintentionally due to an inconveniently-timed crash, or just changing my mind. Blogspot works like this, and generally it's great.

[Rick Cavaretti]

1) Ads? Yes, any manner of blocking short of nuking my computer is fine

2) Refreshing. What happens if I'm right in the middle of an article and it refreshes? And what if they decide to retract a statement or fact in an article that I'm about to read? I want 'that' dirt so I can decide, in these election times, if someone is playing games with my information, and not get the sanitized version.

3) Passwords. You got to be kidding me. I don't even tell my wife my email password. And you want me to put everything into a password manager? Ah, no.

[jupchurch151]

When i first read this article, I stopped and immediately went to look to find out what credentials the author had to be writing this. Is he a web developer? After exceeding my limit on trying to find any link to a bio from Cnet I gave up. The thing is to do everything the author described you'd need a team of programmers and a money tree to make them all happen. I own and operate a web design firm. I cater to small to medium sized businesses. While yes, i could incorporate all of these things into my sites, there's no way my customers could afford them.

For large companies there are standards (like 508 which has been mentioned already) and the extra overhead that all that refreshing causes. You'd be looking at dramatically increasing the bandwidth draw against these sites, and the server load as well, and a good portion of them could easily be from idle clients.

If you're too lazy to hit f5 or to install a refresh plug-in if it's that important to you then I have no sympathy for you. I doubt your life is going to end if you're 30 seconds late on getting information. Twenty years ago you'd have had to wait until the evening news or the next morning to find out, so relax.

The save button... I'm sorry, but if you're too lazy to click save or submit, I have no sympathy for you. Saying that google docs is better than Word, I laugh again. Google docs has it's place, but it's not going to replace Word. Also, Word has an autosave feature, so yes it DOES save for you.

Logging in everywhere is a burden I'll admit. I'd only ever implement a login for a site where I legitimately needed to protect content. So many of these sites require your personal information for demographic and marketing purposes, and I disagree with this philosophy. You don't go to walk into a Wal Mart and have to give over your personal information before you can shop...

As for mobile enabled pages, if the site has enough of a draw for mobile devices then it will have a mobile enabled page. You're on a mobile device with a 2" screen... live with it! You can't have your cake and eat it too! If a site you mobile browse doesn't support mobile browsers, send feedback. Don't assume however, that just because you can load a page from mobile that you're always going to have an easy time of it. Again, is it *really* so important that you can't wait until you get to a real computer? My sympathy meter is already pegged.

As for ads, does anyone really like ads? If I have to take the .5 seconds to find the "close this ad" link when going to a page that's providing me with valuable information without charging me... ok, I can live with that. The block-level ads that expand on a mouse-over are a bit much, that's just a bad concept as it detracts from the appeal and usefulness of a site.

My advice, have patience and don't expect everything for nothing. If you really want a big site to support a feature then give them feedback, but don't expect every site to support it unless you plan on paying the bill. These features don't happen magically, and even using existing open source solutions to save time it's not practical to implement as standard practice.

[Tech Diva XXX]

I don't mind ads, I have actually found some good things through ads. But being FORCED to view them is where I draw the line. The ads that take over without warning when you click on a page are the most annoying ads EVER! Along with the ones that make noise when you didn't even click on them. Why should we have to click to avoid a full page ad we didn't even ask to view?

As for mobile sites, popular sites really should have them and you're right that many do. HOWEVER, about this: "Again, is it *really* so important that you can't wait until you get to a real computer?" Did you forget that many devices ARE mobile computers and that many people do their business on these devices because they don't always have access to a full size computer? I prefer a laptop myself, just due to screen size, but it's not always feasible to lug one around. The times are changing and everyone's moving to smaller mobile devices they can take anywhere. Business sites really need to have a mobile version ready.

[shawnshine]

I just tried the Blog it live deal. Saw a link for the marvel blog. It was updating and refreshing so fast I couldn't even catch the headlines much less find I story I wanted to read. PooPoo on that pile o'crap idea.

[barrydallen]

I would like to agree with most of the article. However I do need to make some points to ponder to all web developers out there in the real world.
Not all users have broadband networking. AJAX processing on a slow connection for every update or save on every key stroke would be impossible to use.
Web sites that play video's on entry should be band from the net.

[Ctxpal]

Kinda funny how you are complaining about the blocker ads when cnet LOVES to do this.

[vickynes]

Refresh is still needed, but in our case, live.slashgear.com is a great example on how live coverage should be. You want to read, not clicking around when it comes to real time information.I was on the same boat as you were during apple's announcement yesterday until i found slashgear

[Tech Diva XXX]

How come CNET uses annoying blocker type ads itself??? Hmmm. Forcing us to look at ads is truly annoying, take note CNET!!

[Dalkorian]

Advertisements are getting WAY out of hand. I tried to watch a 4 second video on military.com the other day, but had to suffer through a 15 second pre-roll commercial first (no idea what the commercial was about, I was to angry at having to watch it to begin with). ***??

I won't, I repeat, I WILL NOT support any site that uses blocker ads, in fact I avoid them like the plague. That's got to be the most arrogantly annoying thing in the world and when I encounter them all I can think of is to find the little 'x' that makes it go away. I never have a clue what's playing in the ad, I'm to distracted trying to make it go away. I should probably watch more of them so I know which companies to BOYCOTT.

[Jyundi7]

Saving with one set of user and passes? That is a major security risk to yourself, especially if you use that user and/or pass with sites that contain your credit card or other sensitive data. The amount of security flaws on the web is staggering - Some sites are way too easy to hack - Be careful out there!

[MagnoliaSouth]

Excellent post and I couldn't agree more!!!

The most annoying for me, is what the vote lead indicates: Blocker ads. It's SO bad that I deliberately switched browsers for this very reason. I block all ads via the excellent Firefox extension Adblock Plus. It's a shame because it prevents their sponsors from actually sponsoring them, but they asked for it by allowing it. It's also a shame because I shouldn't have to do that to begin with. Intrusive ads are - in my opinion - an invasion of my personal space. It's like someone shouting in my face that I should get new car insurance. Do they really believe that I'm going to listen to that kind of advertising?

Next in line is log ins. I'm with you on that one; there just has to be a better solution. I'm not a Facebook disciple so I can't comment on the way they do things, but I can say that we should have some way to get a global ID.

I dont' have a smart phone, so #4 isn't much of an issue for me and I'm not sure I follow you on #1. Foxnews has an auto-refresh which drives me into insanity. I can't stand it. If you're talking something like that, I'd rather not.