Computer/Database systems that cannot sort ‘dates’ correctly. If I wanted to sort, from oldest to newest, you would expect months to line up from January to December as follows: 01, 02, 03… 10, 11, 12. But so often you see it like this: 1, 10, 11, 12, 2, 3… Don’t be pedantic and fucking sort it out!
Doesn’t matter whether your dates are done the Euro way or the US way (22/11/2016 or 11/22/2016) this problem of ‘alphabetizing’ the numbers used by dates is prevalent and ridiculous. It leaves the only practical solution always doing 2016/11/22 which isn’t necessarily a problem but almost nobody stores dates this way.
They should do, as it’s the internationally standard way ;) I try to write all of my dates that way. Still, it even breaks down here as 2016/11/12 is lexicographically smaller than 2016/11/2, so things need to follow the standard and 0-pad their dates
I remember reading The Old New Thing about how explorer had to be updated over the years to meet people’s expectations of how things “should” be sorted. I think it might have been this, though I remember reading it on his blog rather than a random site. (ps whilst searching for that article I found out that some people out there like the leixco- way of sorting numbers!)
Oh, and not just dates. Was reminded the other day sorting IP addresses… 192.168.1.1, .10, .11… .100, .101… .2 instead of .1, .2, .3… THEN .10, .11, .12… (20, 30, 40…) THEN .100… and so forth and so on. And this in software where the sole design was to find IP address, machine names, MAC, etc. In what world did they think sorting IPs should work like THAT?
Modern webpage design. Too much picture, not enough text. And too much getting cute with images as the user scrolls down. Maybe I’m just getting old and these stupid kids need to keep off my lawn… but maybe it really does suck and waste everyone’s time and bandwidth.
If your site loads a blank page* when I have scripting turned off, you’re Doing It Wrong. And obviously have no worthwhile content anyway, so thanks for letting me know that I guess?
Where blank also includes an entire page that contains nothing more than an admonition to turn on JavaScript.
Well people* have faster Internet now, so instead of having pages load faster, clearly we just need more shit on the pages to use the bandwidth up.
On a similar note (and I think I may have even bitched about this on this very forum years ago), I nerd rage when people use high resolution, full color PNG images when they could get near-as-makes-no-difference identical results with a fraction of the file size by using JPEG. And then to add to the stupidity, they save text and solid color images as JPEG, when they could get far better results with a fraction of the file size by using PNG. But hey! Bandwidth is free!
Bad web design has existed since the invention of the World Wide Web, but the popularity of infinite scrolling on pages seems to have caused some hasty implementations where it seems to have been shoe-horned into an existing design. I’ve hit more than one site where some link I needed was part of a footer block of links. That was a very common web design. But some brilliant web page developer had implemented infinite scrolling on the content. Every time I spot the footer, the site loads more content and the footer gets pushed away.
Web pages that minimize the header as you scroll down. A minuscule percentage of sites do this properly with a smooth transition. The rest just say fuck it and awkwardly snap between modes, often covering up whatever was at the top of the screen.
They’ve done the Windows 8 UI thing with their website design, i hate it and it will probably stop me using it as much (same thing happened with the BBC site and many others).
Oh, and if the first thing your site does when I visit is either play audio, or pop up with a newsletter sign up page, you are fucking dead to me. I no longer care for your content in the slightest.
and Arstechnica have gone back to the less hideous older style of their webpage (so the non modern webpage look). They say it is for technical reasons, but i’m crossing everything that they just forget the awful recent change they tried a few days back.
Back in the day when Moo2, Galciv, OS/2 Warp 3.0 came out, Lotus Notes was the bomb! Much better than other word processing alternatives IIRC. Maybe that was only on OS2 thought, Windows 95 sucked too much to use.
No! Even back then, Lotus Notes on OS/2 Warp was a bloated p.o.s. There were better light weight clients out there. It was great as a total email and applications platform for document management and workflow stuff. But if it was used solely as email, it’s just too slow and cumbersome.
You should take a gander at Taco Bell’s mobile website. It’s like they looked at the near universal hatred of Windows 8 tiles and said hey is there any way we can make that even worse? It is possibly the worst website redesign I’ve ever encountered.
