Attached Link: http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

Okay, I accidentally scrolled to the very bottom of the page and saw the dreaded "force the user to our settings" phrase: "Best viewed at 1024x768". Well, as you can see from the screen shot (taken on a 800x600) monitor, you *BETTER* use a 1024x768 screen. I thought the options for the side bar were "left" or "right". Why is mine "centered"?

Or a better question is: why should I change my resolution to 1024x768 to view this site when every one of the other million sites that I vist works fine under 800x600?

Anyway, my point is this- it is considered very bad web design to force the user into anything. In essence, you are saying, "This is the way WE want the site to look. We really can't be bothered to make a dynamically-sizing page that adapts to the USERS needs. If you don't like it, change YOUR settings to fit OUR needs or just leave. Oh, and by the way, don't forget to visit our Marketplace on your way out."

What's next? Can we expect the site to go back to the days of 1997 and include little banners telling users what they should install:

• "Best viewed with IE 6.243 [Netscape users get out now]"
• "Best viewed with Netscape 7 [IE users get out now]"
  or the dreaded:
• "Best viewed with AOL browser [please download and install AOL to properly view this site]"
  or even worse:
• "This site requires Flash 6.0 Shockwave Plug-in 2.34 [get it now or all you'll see is a blank page]"
• "This site requires Obscure Bondware Plug-in XJ5 [sit through a 10M download and get it now or all you'll see is a blank page, even though this is the only site that will use that plug-in]" I meant this one to be sarcastic, but I wonder how long it will be until the site in run under some blend of Java/ Bondware code that really does require a plug-in to be installed?

I'm done with my complaints, though. It's obvious that whomever "designed" this site did not study usability or design theory.
I suggest going to, reading, and memorizing the above link. Learn it, learn from it, and use it to correct this site. Make us artists proud to come here and proud to refer people here.

--John

I'm not as angry as your are, John :-) but I have to agree. The very first and most important thing that a web designer has to have in mind is not force the user to anything. I know in many cases absolutely anything is not realistic, since one of the problems of web designers is to make the site compatible with every system/ browser/ resolution. Gosh, I hate compatibility issues so much that I quit web design, even when I had clients that referred new ones. BUT the very least is to make it viewable by the most people possible (that's the goal of any website, right?). And the most used resolution is 800 x 600. This is not a complain, just an observation.

Oh, and by the way. I don't envy these guys' work. I imagine them receiving all these complains and pulling their hair, lol. I think they are doing a good job for a very demanding community (but then again, that might be because we like this community so much) G

I've been complaining about this very same thing in numerous threads for the past few days, so I'll happily chime in on this one too. :) why should I change my resolution to 1024x768 to view this site when every one of the other million sites that I vist works fine under 800x600? Yep!

I think this now works at any resolution over 800x600. Thanks for the feedback. Tim

Thanks for the change Tim. Much more pleasant without the scrolling.