Interesting article about the size of web-pages nowadays. I do think that web-design is the biggest annoyance and threat to the web. There are so many ugly looking and bloated websites with interesting content, but I still choose to stay away from them because they get on my nerves. https://mobiforge.com/research-analysis/the-web-is-doom
I can't stand "dynamically loading" sites, here are some examples: https://www.jumbo.com/aanbiedingen http://www.amazon.com/Prime-Video/b?ie=UTF8&node=2676882011 http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-and-amazon-get-ready-for-content-quotas-in-europe/
Modern trend: huge text and huge icons, I generally avoid webpages like that. Extremelly time consuming and too little info. Eg. www.cnet.com
cnet.com is by far the worst of those three, with numerous annoying domains trying to connect (uBlockO shows this). The first two are mostly images, although admittedly annoying and ugly too.
Yeah, agreed. That's why ad and wide-spectrum blockers like uBlockO or NoScript are pretty much essential these days. At least they can trim down sluggish and repugnant websites to some extent.
Yes, besides being ugly, they are often way too bloated because of all the trackers. I don't know if I would go that far, but I definitely believe in "less is more". The strange thing is you almost never see ugly newspapers and magazines in print, but seems like most web-developers are complete idiots. I avoid about 80% of sites just because the way they look and act.
It depends a bit, not all of them are ugly. I will give some example of the good and the bad. Bad doesn't always means it's ugly, but a lot of sites are way too cluttered. Good design: http://tweakers.net/ https://bettyskitchen.nl/ http://www.finanzen.nl/ http://pinchofyum.com/ http://nieuw.ad.nl/nieuws/ http://www.movies-net.com/category/action-adventure http://www.computerstore.nl/category/122622/desktops.html Interesting design: https://www.cylance.com/ https://www.roku.com/how-it-works http://www.crowdstrike.com/ http://www.emerce.nl/ http://www.bpdeurope.com/ Bad design: http://www.cnbc.com/world/?region=world http://www.marketwatch.com/markets https://www.thestreet.com/ http://www.rollingstone.com/ http://www.iex.nl/ http://muydelish.com/2016/03/easy-chicken-pot-pie.html
I forgot about popular sites like facebook.com and amazon.com who both have a horrible and bloated design. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...te|ttr[cat|237[art|NA[pid|56775[tid|NA[bbc|NA
More dumb designed websites, some with "dynamic loading", it's truly sickening: http://www.aetv.com/ http://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/gypsy-sisters/ http://www.pbs.org/shows/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/window...to-rise-but-users-say-no-to-the-edge-browser/
There is a lot of excess crap on so many web sites. On pbs.org/shows/, I was easily able to watch a recipe video and display all text needed by connecting only 10 out of 24 domains using uBlockO. So more than 50% was not even required for viewing only the essential content. EDIT: another site gone downhill in recent years is tsn.ca; I used to feel this site was beautifully designed just in the way the content was displayed. It was visually appealing and it played video content efficiently fast. The site was "lightweight", and yet it looked professionally designed. Nowadays, however, it's horribly heavy in content with so many 3rd-party domains required to properly display video content. One of these domains, s0.2mdn.net has to be allowed outright for certain content to play, as even applying a noop filter to preserve static filtering will break some video content, because of the fact an ad needs to play before the desired content will play. I guess this is the modern day reality of the way the Internet has gone and will continue to go, where website owners have to design their sites to force-play 3rd-party garbage in order to rely on advertising income. Fortunately the wide-spectrum blocker allows me to pare down close to half of the 3rd-party garbage without breaking essential content. I don't know how people can stand surfing the web without an ad blocker or similar in full time use.
Yeah, it's so annoying, there are so many things wrong with websites nowadays. I can't stand the bloat, but they often also look ugly. Of course, most sites do load quite quickly if you have broadband and use a script-blocker. Too give some more examples, all Yahoo sites are ridiculously bloated, they use quite a lot of CPU time. And I hate this new trend where instead of giving you a "load more" or "go to next page" button, article just keeps auto-loading. And check out the second link, the site is 14 MB big, what are these guys thinking? https://www.yahoo.com/ https://www.liveondemand.com/
BTW, here is an example of how it should be, they give a you a "more stories" and "next page" option, is this so difficult? But I don't like the dynamic loading of the pictures, I hate these dumb special effects. http://www.curbed.com/ http://www.curbed.com/archives
Another horrible site, the list goes on and on. I must say that sites that use HTML Video sometimes look cool, see second link. http://www.bustle.com/ http://divitel.com/
Dynamic loading is becoming the new plague on the web, perhaps I should start a petition, to ban this stuff. http://www.vocativ.com/327890/video-games-as-a-training-tool-for-pro-athletes-you-bet/
This site will make my CPU constantly use about 30%, and system temp will rise to 50C. All because of the animation, freaking ridiculous. https://www.forescout.com/
LOL, this is hilarious, you will have to see it to believe it. These are the homepages of 95 web-design companies, and almost all of them are either ugly, unhandy or bloated. Is this the future of web-design? Then we're in serious trouble. Don't these companies know about the KISS principle? http://www.awwwards.com/95-inspiring-websites-of-web-design-agencies.html
