In Response to “Things I Want Gone from the Web in 2007″

Nov 19, 2007 by Matt | Posted in General 2 Comments

Lorelle VanFossen recently penned an informative article cataloging some of the things she wants “gone from the web in 2007.” I agree with most of her points, like

  • killing pop-up windows
  • out-of-control advertising
  • music on websites
  • not “splogging”

Some of the points, like “validate with other browsers,” while important, are kind of obvious.
I’ve also been implementing some of her tips. I’ve removed the CAPTCHA I had on my comments, and I’m relying solely on Akismet’s comment protection service. I’ve been meaning to (for a few months now) meaning to build a print style sheet, but I haven’t had the time lately.

However, I don’t agree with one of Lorelle’s points. “Forced With Web Page Layouts.” Lorelle complains of layouts with a fixed width. Meanwhile, I can’t stand layouts that don’t have a fixed width. They just don’t work very well in most cases. There are some times when they work well, but not many. Just pick a reasonable width for your design to minimize the amount of users who will have to scroll sideways, and make sure the site is still usable for those who do. 1024 pixels seems to be the “standard” screen width now. There are still a few people who are running around with 800×600 resolutions, but not many. Support them if you want, but if you don’t make sure that whatever gets cut-off isn’t too important. If your main content can be read without scrolling, you’re fine.

Also, I have one clarification/correction: Lorelle mentions “Javascript Driven Links.” Instead of linking directly to a URL, they run some JavaScript rubbish, but you still jump over to the “linked” page. Lorelle, apparently, didn’t know the reason for this. It’s a rotten “black-hat SEO” tactic. By using JavaScript to redirect to the page, instead of linking the normal way, no PageRank is passed-on to the other site. So they’re linking to a site, but the other site isn’t getting any benefit from it (search engine-wise).

Well, that’s my response (which would have made for a really long comment). Be sure to check-out the original post at “Lorelle on WordPress”.

  • http://lorelle.wordpress.com/ Lorelle

    I see that the CAPTCHA is still in place. :D

    Actually, I do know the reason behind Javascript driven links, and there are many reasons, of which you described, as well as for stats, control of destination, and advertising. What I don’t understand is the “why”. Why torture your visitors with such games when they aren’t necessary. I know why people do it. I question their motive.

    As for the problems you perceive on flexible layouts versus fixed width layouts, if done right, there are few problems with flexible layouts. The problem is that anyone with a browser and a little knowledge can create a web page design. Doesn’t mean they know what they are doing. :D

    Thanks for reminding me about this almost year old article. I’ll have to get my thinking cap on to think up some new annoyances (oh, there are many, trust me) for next year’s post.

  • http://www.webmaster-source.com Matt

    “I see that the CAPTCHA is still in place.” I took it off for a day, and I was hit with a flood of spam that slipped through Akismet. I’ll have to do more research into antispam measures. I’ve been wanting to get rid of the CAPTCHA, but I don’t want to spend an hour every day deleting spam.

    “What I don’t understand is the “why”. Why torture your visitors with such games when they aren’t necessary. I know why people do it. I question their motive.” Their motive is to have high Google rankings, and a flood of visitors. However, they’re not being nice to their repeat visitors…so they probably don’t have many.

    “As for the problems you perceive on flexible layouts versus fixed width layouts, if done right, there are few problems with flexible layouts.” They can be done right, and I’m not totally against them (maybe I should have worded the post a bit better), but I don’t know why, I just don’t like designs with variable widths. I don’t know why, I’m just not a big fan of them. If there was an easier (and reliable) way to mark a DIV with a minimum/maximum width, then I’d go right ahead and rebuild all the designs I’ve made to be at least partially flexible.