Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why is website design so awful today, generally?
- Thread starter Tozovac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I guess you belief in flat earth and no vaccine as well? The world disagrees with you Nick
That's just fine. That's part of being an individual--not everyone will agree with you.
Personally, if someone wants to believe in flat earth they're not harming anyone, they're just people who believe what they want. Doesn't make sense to me, but whatever. They are free to believe what they want so long as they don't start killing anyone or raping anyone over it, or pulling a Heaven's Gate type event.
Personally I believe that a lot of those 'flat earthers' are just folks who joined that society to get the card and nothing more. Just to be 'different' for the sake of being different. 90% don't believe what they promote. The Flat Earth Society are some of the oldest 'troll' organizations ever. Stir up stuff and that's it.
Personally, if someone wants to believe in flat earth they're not harming anyone, they're just people who believe what they want. Doesn't make sense to me, but whatever. They are free to believe what they want so long as they don't start killing anyone or raping anyone over it, or pulling a Heaven's Gate type event.
Personally I believe that a lot of those 'flat earthers' are just folks who joined that society to get the card and nothing more. Just to be 'different' for the sake of being different. 90% don't believe what they promote. The Flat Earth Society are some of the oldest 'troll' organizations ever. Stir up stuff and that's it.
Ah ha.Demand as in most visitors use a mobile device, or a viewport that is below a certain size, etc.
If most visitors to your shop arrive by bicycle, then why have a huge car park for cars but no bicycle stands?
The 85% doesn't mean anything as Stephen has already highlighted several times. And if the whole site is responsive then the 85% already got the same functionality on mobile as they have on the desktop. That is great isn't it
You are defining "demand" based on the device people use.
How is that the same as what functionality and design people would prefer (..if they were actually given a choice )?..
Your "arrive by bicycle" analogy suggests that you are missing the point......
....Or maybe by accident it happens to underscore "our" point about mobile sites !
How are the cycle stands relevant to the function of the premises being visited ?
Also, your cycle stands are an extra service.
Surely to complete your analogy with mobile site, you have to remove the car parking spaces ?
(i.e. equivalent to removing content and navigation for a mobile site)
Let's take your cyclist analogy further.
How does the addition of cycle stands inform the nature of the service at the premises ?
Does this mean that because a cyclist cannot be expected to carry home a large purchase, the shop stops stocking large items ?
(But maybe ask Customers first ??)
Seriously, the main conclusion is that "design" is being producer-driven (as we suspected) not demand-led .
"The 85% doesn't mean anything as Stephen has already highlighted several times. And if the whole site is responsive then the 85% already got the same functionality on mobile as they have on the desktop. That is great isn't it
"How can you justify as "great" that a site "being responsive" means that it has "the same functionality on mobile as they have on the desktop" ?
You know perfectly well that in order to deliver a "responsive" site, content and (often) navigation gets reduced.
To many people that is the opposite of "great" ?
(Argue that it is a necessary technical compromise if you must.)
In any case, "responsive" sites are usually dreadful on a Desktop-.
Especially for anyone re-sizing windows to do side-by-side work.... when content shuffles and navigation disappears.
(Surely re-sizing was the whole point of "windows" ... or have PC users regressed ???)
Brilliant. We have an understanding.
But the point of this Thread was that Designers are making design choices - that seem to have little to do with technical constraints - and even less to do with what Users might prefer (e.g. that claim around 85% of Users).
e.g.
Reducing content way more than necessary.
Removing design details - that are useful in Desktop view - e.g. borders, shaded panels etc
Reducing or disguising navigation - esp. borders around clickable areas
Adding extra space so forcing scrolling - i.e. extra work
Replacing numbered pages with infinite or loooong scroll
And wtf has pale, grey unreadable text got to do with mobile design ????????????????????
This sums up one of the greatest mis-conceptions by some web-design bloggers.
"I might be able to 'get used to' or 'adapt' to a pig farm or sewer treatment plant being located next to my home, but that doesn't make it OK, either."
I have lost count of the number of blogs where designers have written:
"People have got used to scrolling"
"More people are using mobile phones"
"People expect...... X or Y" (maybe a pointless, info-lacking, scroll-forcing hero-image)
None of these are evidence of what Users would prefer...... on their mobile phones - let alone Desktops (whose Users seem to have been relegated by Designers.)
Last edited:
You do realise that most web-designers think you must be mad !
Apparently "no-one wants to pinch and zoom" and see loads of content !
Sadly I still haven't worked out to force my wife's table to respect "Desktop View".
Supposedly it's something about changing the "User Agent" setting - but I cannot find it.
(Samsung Galaxy Tab A)
You do realise that most web-designers think you must be mad !
Apparently "no-one wants to pinch and zoom" and see loads of content !
Sadly I still haven't worked out to force my wife's table to respect "Desktop View".
Supposedly it's something about changing the "User Agent" setting - but I cannot find it.
(Samsung Galaxy Tab A)
I'm using Chrom and changing this view is easy as just go to the triple-dot and check right for the desktop view on my android.
Unfortunately tablets and their browsers don't remember the 'force desktop view' setting, and many sites today ignore it completely (mainly these 'responsive' sites) so you either have it make no effect, or you're constantly toggling it on for each site you visit.
I got plenty of old APKs of browsers circa Android 2.3 that pre-date that mess and load each site in full view (Dolphin HD, Boat Browser, and UC Browser) or can at least use the webview engine to work today despite them being 10 years old. Toggling off Javascript also helps. A lot of responsive sites need Javascript to function. Another bonus is they fail to load YouTube ads.
I got plenty of old APKs of browsers circa Android 2.3 that pre-date that mess and load each site in full view (Dolphin HD, Boat Browser, and UC Browser) or can at least use the webview engine to work today despite them being 10 years old. Toggling off Javascript also helps. A lot of responsive sites need Javascript to function. Another bonus is they fail to load YouTube ads.
Sorry, but I think you have missed the point.
My wife's tablet now has "Desktop View" as the default setting - under that 3 dots (....which "designer" thought of that....?) .....
....but "Desktop View" fails to appear.
Either it is the site - or it is the android browser (as Nick D confirms).
Since a lot of sites don't offer a full desktop version at all today (facebook, cough!) that 'request desktop site' is more broken today than ever. A lot of times there simply is no desktop site to request. It's just one crappy mobile-first (sucks to be a laptop user!) 'responsive' design.
It was far better if one wanted a mobile view to either install and use the app or append 'm' or 'wap' to the URL. But that was when folks were smarter...
My old Galaxy Tabs and my modern S20 FE's browsers only have 'request desktop site' as an option. Apple devices you can override and load or attempt to load sites in desktop view by default under Safari settings. Android browsers, most of them anyways, only apply to the currently viewed site. Soon as you load additional tabs or other sites, the setting is lost and you have to re-check it. Tedious as heck.
Ironically, I have discovered that the older 'm.site.com' option still exists for most sites today, and has either been left enabled or simply forgotten by the site admin, so 'm.facebook.com' is even nicer than the crappy responsive site. Same for m.youtube.com. Loads just as the app looks on a tablet. That's how I use YouTube on my older tablets which don't support the app.
It was far better if one wanted a mobile view to either install and use the app or append 'm' or 'wap' to the URL. But that was when folks were smarter...
My old Galaxy Tabs and my modern S20 FE's browsers only have 'request desktop site' as an option. Apple devices you can override and load or attempt to load sites in desktop view by default under Safari settings. Android browsers, most of them anyways, only apply to the currently viewed site. Soon as you load additional tabs or other sites, the setting is lost and you have to re-check it. Tedious as heck.
Ironically, I have discovered that the older 'm.site.com' option still exists for most sites today, and has either been left enabled or simply forgotten by the site admin, so 'm.facebook.com' is even nicer than the crappy responsive site. Same for m.youtube.com. Loads just as the app looks on a tablet. That's how I use YouTube on my older tablets which don't support the app.
Compare these for example:
I don't care how big your phone is, that desktop version is a pain to navigate on mobile.
I just showed up here, but to me, the "desktop" site looks way better to me on the phone. I know I can pinch or double-tap to zoom in, I know the Reader mode is there if I want to read the article, and, particularly, I can see where everything else is. On the "mobile" version… maybe I have to scroll to get "everything else"? Maybe it's hidden in the menu? Or, increasingly today: maybe the mobile version restricts it? Maybe I can't use it without hearing about having to download a native mobile app? (And so on.)
Hopefully it's there, but so much about the original design's intention is shrouded.
Today, with screens going past 6", the point of a mobile site is even less relevant today than in 2010.
Well... those 6" screens are also a very tall and skinny 19:9 aspect ratio. It's not shaped anything like a landscape desktop monitor. Nor does it provide the same experience as a big desktop monitor.
And that's why most websites have switched to responsive designs to reflow the content based on the size *and* shape of the viewport to make it easier to see on the go.
I don't care how big phones get... they'll still never be as big as my huge desktop monitor.
I wonder if there's some sort of feature, you know, like an accelerometer, that rotates the screen when you turn the phone sideways? That'd be a nice feature, wouldn't it?
Yeah... and when you rotate your phone... the screen is now very narrow top-to-bottom. It's like you're looking through a mail slot!
Below are a couples examples of the largest iPhone screen ever made... the 6.7" iPhone 12 Pro Max... compared to a 13.3" Macbook screen.
It's not just the inches... it's the shape that you have to consider.
And that's why we have mobile websites even though we have "screens going past 6 inches" as you put it.
Well, then there's where tablets and laptops come and shine. They have screens designed for desktop content. The problem is that no sites seem to properly 'respond' to a desktop computer or laptop or tablet. We have mobile UIs forced on everything hence the problem!
A smartphone will no more replace the laptop or tablet any more than a Toyota Prius would replace a pickup truck or SUV. Each device has vastly different needs and use-cases.
It's 2021. You want to know what my smartphone use consists of? Playing MP3s offline (yeah), making calls, texting my girlfriend, an occasional web search for a part number, taking notes offline (complete with skeuo notes app), and keeping my fitness apps synced. That's it. It will never be an optimal laptop or tablet replacer. People need to accept that a phone isn't a computer. I'm reminded of that funny scene from the movie RV where Robin Williams typed out an entire business document spanning some fifty or so pages on a BlackBerry Curve!
A smartphone will no more replace the laptop or tablet any more than a Toyota Prius would replace a pickup truck or SUV. Each device has vastly different needs and use-cases.
It's 2021. You want to know what my smartphone use consists of? Playing MP3s offline (yeah), making calls, texting my girlfriend, an occasional web search for a part number, taking notes offline (complete with skeuo notes app), and keeping my fitness apps synced. That's it. It will never be an optimal laptop or tablet replacer. People need to accept that a phone isn't a computer. I'm reminded of that funny scene from the movie RV where Robin Williams typed out an entire business document spanning some fifty or so pages on a BlackBerry Curve!
To a considerable degree, that is true.
Just occasionally, someone manages significantly better. For example, The Guardian newspaper, by offering their own app (IOS/IPADOS and Android) and also allowing browser access (laptop/desktop - or a small screen device if you really want), have managed a surprisingly flexible and usable interface.
I have zero idea what code is behind the app - quite possibly it actually exploits some Safarai code. But it is about the only interface/pair of interfaces I regularly use on which I can hop from phone to desktop, etc., and still feel comfortable within the obvious limitations of each device.
Sure, a lot of it simply displays text. But some of the other news sites are truly dreadful without jumping devices.
The only solution for Facebook is to use the older mobile site, m.facebook.com, instead of the default one, which is obviously not designed for a laptop user in mind. It really sucks since 2020 when it got modified. Thankfully I don't log in much. If sites continue down this path, I'm going to start using the archive and The Old Net more often. I hardly use the web outside of YouTube and this site anyway.
WebDevs are making me want to use apps more than the web browser these days. I really wish there were such a thing as 'site standards' which don't change once the formula is just right. Same reason cars today still have four wheels, and planes have two wings. Once you get the design right just leave it alone.
I still lament Flash dying off. Who made that decision anyway? certainly not the users. I'm sure Joecartoon and NewGrounds loved being EOLd there!
WebDevs are making me want to use apps more than the web browser these days. I really wish there were such a thing as 'site standards' which don't change once the formula is just right. Same reason cars today still have four wheels, and planes have two wings. Once you get the design right just leave it alone.
I still lament Flash dying off. Who made that decision anyway? certainly not the users. I'm sure Joecartoon and NewGrounds loved being EOLd there!
If Flash had been created with security in mind, indeed at the very front of the designers' minds, it might have had its points. But from a maintenance point of view, it was utterly unbelievable. One round of updates, very largely for security reasons, rarely completed before the next needed doing.
I also found all too many sites which used Flash either for absolutely everything, or at least for many things where it was totally unnecessary.
Good riddance. But not convinced what has come since is much better.
Still tons of entertainment lost and a lot of sites going down for no real reason. I don't recall anyone getting hacked for using Flash. The only issue I had was needing constantly updated plugins and the performance issues. Kinda a shame about Henry Stickmin though...
I still want to know who told Adobe to stuff it. I mean since when did companies stop caring about what the users want? Wasn't that basic economics? Seems today companies do whatever they want and tell users to stuff it. That used to EOL a company back in the 60s. Since when are we as customers meant to satisfy the company instead of the other way around?
Take the point of this thread for example. Tons of users will complain about a site to the site admin and just be told to either 'get used to it old man' or 'GTFO'. I don't get it. It's like no site dev or software dev believes in restoring what worked before after tons of complaints about the 'update' happen. It's like they can't comprehend any example of where the old way worked best, and I can't recall a single company ever dialing back a UI design either despite complaints. It's like all progress must move in one direction even if it's a regression.
I still want to know who told Adobe to stuff it. I mean since when did companies stop caring about what the users want? Wasn't that basic economics? Seems today companies do whatever they want and tell users to stuff it. That used to EOL a company back in the 60s. Since when are we as customers meant to satisfy the company instead of the other way around?
Take the point of this thread for example. Tons of users will complain about a site to the site admin and just be told to either 'get used to it old man' or 'GTFO'. I don't get it. It's like no site dev or software dev believes in restoring what worked before after tons of complaints about the 'update' happen. It's like they can't comprehend any example of where the old way worked best, and I can't recall a single company ever dialing back a UI design either despite complaints. It's like all progress must move in one direction even if it's a regression.
There were untold numbers of hacks - some of which might not have been noticed by the user, just let data out.
In the end, I don't think Adobe could afford to keep it going. Someone would eventually have blamed them - maybe for a ransomware attack - with lots of potential liability.
https://uk.pcmag.com/security/93183/adobe-flash-flaw-exploited-in-north-korea-linked-hacks
Oh I agree. I'm primarily a desktop user.
I'm actually in the middle of a big website redesign right now. Of course I'm building it on a desktop. And obviously I want the site to look great on a desktop. (and it does!)
BUT... I'm constantly checking my phone to see how the site will look on mobile.
More than half of web traffic comes from phones today... and that number will only increase.
I do wish more sites today would focus on the desktop experience. But I'm afraid we're a dying breed.