×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bad Web Sites Can Cause "Mouse Rage"

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the high-blood-pressure dept.

The Internet 267

alphadogg writes "Badly designed Web sites may have negative effects on a user's immune, cardiovascular, and nervous systems, a study says. The study of 2,500 users was commissioned by Rackspace Managed Hosting and published by the UK's Social Issues Research Centre. It found that five technology flaws in Web sites may have deleterious effects." How long before the first class action suit in the U.S. over bad Web site design?

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

267 comments

Web sites may have deleterious effects? (0, Troll)

lecithin (745575) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309662)

"Conducted by the Social Issues Research Centre in the United Kingdom, the study identified key factors that can negatively affect cardio functions, as well as the immune and nervous systems."

And they still don't know what causes bad teeth.

I like the Title of this story:
Developers: Bad Web Sites Can Cause "Mouse Rage"

Okay, what causes Developer Rage?

Re:Web sites may have deleterious effects? (5, Funny)

dnc253 (1039198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309686)

"Okay, what causes Developer Rage?"

Two words: Internet Explorer

Re:Web sites may have deleterious effects? (-1, Flamebait)

eclectro (227083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309818)

Bzzzzt!!! wrong two words. How 'bout the

two words: "gaping orifice"

Re:Web sites may have deleterious effects? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17310574)

Whee, a redundancy.

Re:Web sites may have deleterious effects? (5, Funny)

shoolz (752000) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309820)

Well... this IE only site provided me with much enjoyment...

http://drafzal.com/old/ [drafzal.com].

Re:Web sites may have deleterious effects? (1)

geobeck (924637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309884)

Aaaaghh! My eyes!

You have a very twisted sense of 'enjoyment'.

Re:Web sites may have deleterious effects? (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310090)

Aaaaghh! My eyes!
Didn't you hear the audio? [drafzal.com]

It doesn't work on Mozilla, only IE. And of course, "Best View:1024 by 768 pixel", so you'll want to carefully resize your browser window before you go there.

Re:Web sites may have deleterious effects? (1)

Flounder (42112) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310238)

Damn you! Now, I'll never get that song out of my head. If there ever was a sight that makes you want to stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALA", that's it.

Re:Web sites may have deleterious effects? (2, Funny)

Asztal_ (914605) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310548)

You know something's wrong when you open the site in a background tab and you can hear your usually-silent hard drives grinding away trying to get away from the page via suicide...

Re:Web sites may have deleterious effects? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17309922)

Two words: "FAGGOT ZEALOT"

Re:Web sites may have deleterious effects? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17309832)

Mouse ragers should welcome their new TrackBall Raging Overlords !!

Re:Web sites may have deleterious effects? (3, Insightful)

bakana (918482) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310326)

It is crazy how every week someone releases another scientific finding after only running one experiment. The funnier part is how quickly the public is to line up and swallow the feces. Most of these so called "sound scientific reports" are badly planned experiments, well correlating observations, that don't really test for what they say they test. A good example would be the vaccination for cervical cancer, which is really a vaccination for a virus not the cancer. But hey John Q Public is first to sit at the table, put a bib on, and enjoy the big old pile of ....

Re:Web sites may have deleterious effects? (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310602)

>And they still don't know what causes bad teeth
We know what causes 'bad' teeth. We're just not obsessed with having unrealistically white and straight teeth. We like the natural look, thanks.

How long before the first class action suit in the (3, Insightful)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309672)

How long before the first class action suit in the U.S. over bad Web site design?

My reply: Didn't we already have the blind sue over something similar to this?

Re:How long before the first class action suit in (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17309678)

Didn't we already have the blind sue over something similar to this?
Bump.

Re:How long before the first class action suit in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17309914)

Bump.
Jackass.

Re:How long before the first class action suit in (2, Funny)

omeomi (675045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309708)

I wonder how hard it would be to design a website that was so awful [aol.com] that it actually caused physical illness...

Re:How long before the first class action suit in (2, Informative)

cloricus (691063) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309764)

Not sure though I believe these guys [microsoft.com] know. I nearly went insane trying to work out where the Exchange 2003 patches section was yesterday; and when I got there I was told it was only accessible via a password that you get from a phone tech...

Re:How long before the first class action suit in (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309792)

Other [myspace.com] sites regularly cause me to vomit, so it can't be too hard.

Re:How long before the first class action suit in (0, Flamebait)

melikamp (631205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310058)

MySpace is more of a hosting service itself. The individual pages do not [myspace.com] have to [melikamp.net] suck [myspace.com].

Re:How long before the first class action suit in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17310214)

Then why use two of the ones that do suck as examples?

Re:How long before the first class action suit in (0, Flamebait)

melikamp (631205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310244)

A smarthat, eh? Don't make me spam your MySpace profile with goatse.

My reply (0, Troll)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309758)

My reply: Didn't we already have the blind sue over something similar to this?

My reply: Do we get to choose which jerks are first up against the wall when the revolution comes? And can we pick web application developers?
'Cause if so, I'm totally in. (Stupid defect tracking system popping up windows left and right...)

Re:How long before the first class action suit in (1)

Conanymous Award (597667) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309902)

I'm not blind, you insensitive clod! I'm visionally challenged!

Re:How long before the first class action suit in (4, Funny)

Ixitar (153040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309956)

I'm not blind, you insensitive clod! I'm visionally challenged!

What is a company executive doing on this site?

I find this to be ironic... (3, Interesting)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310302)

Steal an mp3 = zillions of dollars in damages

Cause health problems for thousands or millions = no damages?

And people tell me that corporations don't have special rights.......

hint: I mean, let's take away the corporations' special rights...

click here (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309674)

click here to view our latest products!

*clicks* ... sorry, our website is under construction. (animated gif of a construction sign here).

Re:click here for WEB RAGE 2.0 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17309768)

*clicks* ... sorry, our website is under construction. (animated gif of a construction sign here).
Get with the times daddi-o! These days it's all outsized fonts and a textbox for you to sign up for their forthcoming (honest!) beta.

Re:click here (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309888)

That is very unprofessional. However, I can live with it. What annoys the tar out of me is websites with floating windows over top of the main content, like http://ontariodsl.ca/index.html [ontariodsl.ca]. Of course, text flowing out of boxes, and sound effects are not very professional either. My phone company's website used to be the same way.

Cease and Desist (4, Funny)

kihjin (866070) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309684)

How long before the first class action suit in the U.S. over bad Web site design?

Depends on how long it takes my Cease and Desist letter to arrive at CmdrTaco's house. Given the USPS, it might not arrive for weeks!

Re:Cease and Desist (4, Funny)

grammar fascist (239789) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309928)

What I want to know is whether I can sue Logitech after my mouse goes flying through my monitor (or friend's face) in the course of using it correctly as instructed by the owner's manual.

Angle relief. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17309688)

"Badly designed Web sites may have negative effects on a user's immune, cardiovascular, and nervous systems, a study says. "

So that's why Taco redesigned Slashdot. I didn't know he cared.

Re:Angle relief. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17309722)

Badly designed Web sites may have negative effects on a user's immune, cardiovascular, and nervous systems, a study says.

Slashdot: it maeks yuo die.

Slashdot is an example of a badly designed website (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17309692)

And here's [blogspot.com] why.

Re:Slashdot is an example of a badly designed webs (1)

CapitalT (987101) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310206)

Hmm... The blog is offtopic

OH, you mean that it is full of craps?


[/JOKE]

Perfect excuse for not coming in to work tomorrow! (5, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309698)

"Sorry boss, but slashdot's ugly IT color scheme weakened my immune system and now I'm sick so I can't come in today"

Re:Perfect excuse for not coming in to work tomorr (1)

DarkHelmet (120004) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310088)

I'm gonna take the advice of George Carlin, and look all day at bad websites for the purpose of strengthening my immune system.

If I surf craigslist for random crap, I'll be tempered in raw shit!

Re:Perfect excuse for not coming in to work tomorr (1)

Ceriel Nosforit (682174) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310158)

And since we're reading /. from work (I, for one, am.), we sue our employer too. Always add insult to damage!

Ironic (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17309702)

It's ironic that this article appears on the EETimes, which is so chock-full of advertisements that it's difficult to tell where the article ends. Not to mention the annoying flash popup that activates if you mouse-over the corner of the page.

Re:Ironic (3, Insightful)

packeteer (566398) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309756)

Adblock is your friend. Also i personally use flashblock with adblock to prevent unwanted flash.

Re:Ironic (2)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310022)

Yeah seriously.. First thing I think when people complain about ads online is "What ads? Oh right, I've been using Adblock.."

Re:Ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17310076)

and NoScript. the trio rock.

Re:Ironic (1)

Ailure (853833) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310380)

Heh with noscript I saw no reason to use the other tools. It tends to block the ads I find annoying, while I let ads like google ads through. (since they're never intrusive)

The EE Week design is terrible (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309706)

All psychologists agree that plain text loses next to flashing-anything. So there's a 6x8 block of text, buried in (other stuff) ... and get a load of that FlippyPage!

All still proof that Web 3.0 isn't here yet, in which someone figures out a 5 part payment distribution system so that viewers aren't crushed by ads from companies whose boards are adicted to FivePercentGrowth-or-Bust.

We all boycotted Geocities for this back in the day.

Oh for fucks sake (1)

snarkth (1002832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309724)

Justification of salaries apparently knows no rational bounds.

  snarkth

Re:Oh for fucks sake (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309766)

Did you mean justification of marketing?

The study is performed by a strange sounding outfit nobody has heard about and commissioned by rackspace... That about says it all.

Bad websites (5, Funny)

dnc253 (1039198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309728)

Oh man, nothing gets me madder then websites that are doing very simple things, but don't work! I bet I've caused more damage throwin' my mouse around than any of those stupid Wii users. Gotta find me a nice sturdy wrist starp for my mouse.

Re:Bad websites (1)

vought (160908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310282)

Oh man, nothing gets me madder then websites that are doing very simple things, but don't work!

No kidding. Seriously, I think most people have more to fear from blood pressure elevation and arterial wall damage caused by driving to and from work every day than from the odd shitty web site.

I have a cure-all for such web sites. I don't ever visit them again - except for C|Net - because their "teh stupid" is so sparkly that I can't turn away.

Ain't gonna happen (1)

DaSH Alpha (979904) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309732)

How long before the first class action suit in the U.S. over bad Web site design? Never, someone probably patented this particular kind of class action suit already so they wouldn't want to be counter-sued by the patentee.

Yes, "Mouse Rage Syndrome" (5, Insightful)

MutantHamster (816782) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309746)

Or as those of us who aren't pretentious call it: "anger."

Re:Yes, "Mouse Rage Syndrome" (4, Insightful)

geobeck (924637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309926)

Or as those of us who aren't pretentious call it: "anger."

Ah, but if it's a 'syndrome', you can blame someone for it. If it's just anger, it's your own foolish fault you broke your brand new 21" monitor.

Re:Yes, "Mouse Rage Syndrome" (2, Funny)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309988)

"Ah, but if it's a 'syndrome', you can blame someone for it."

Not always, but you can get great drugs to treat it! Anger is a bad diagnosis from the blame/drugs point of view, if your "angry" they blame you, and then treat it by forcing you to hang out with a group of angry strangers twice a week.

Speaking of bad design... (1)

brendanoconnor (584099) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309754)

Wouldn't myspace take the cake on this one? Seriously, I'd rather gouge out my own eyes then shift through any of that.

Re:Speaking of bad design... (1)

oedneil (871555) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309796)

I think you're right, but when I'm forced to wade through Myspace, this [userscripts.org] helps.

the worst cause (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309800)

I think some famous dude said "hell hath no fury like someone who just filled out a huge form and the submit times out and wipes it out" Bad design just makes me feel like yay, there's one less person who would get a job over me (future web designer) but nothing makes me or probably anyone else more pissed than composing something huge like a forum post or filling out a big form and then losing all that. In fact, I'd probably get pretty pissed if I pressed submit right now for this and it froze or something. Let's find out...

Rackspace? (1)

thriexst (1041930) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309812)

Doesn't it seem strange that a company that is dedicated to leasing/selling webservers is saying that every site need to be quick? It is sort of like having oil companies tell us that the world is doing just fine....Oh wait, nevermind.

This long... (2, Funny)

xyankee (693587) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309822)

How long before the first class action suit in the U.S. over bad Web site design?

As soon as those Wii owners return to their computers...

I'd like to read the report (5, Insightful)

Dracos (107777) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309864)

I'm specifically interested in this so-called "perfect website" that was used as a baseline.

Other factors could contribute also, from the ergonomics and lighting of the testing facility to the colors of the sites presented.

How many of these sites were Flash vs standards-based? What was the average text size? Contrast between text and background? Number of images, and their sizes? How about CSS vs table layouts? How did "Pretty" sites (eg, digg.com) fare against "ugly" sites (eg, cragslist)? Static navigation elements vs complex multi-level fly-out menus? There are a lot of possible factors and criteria that go unmentioned, at least in TFA.

"The message is clear: Businesses need to provide simple and easy-to-navigate layouts, whilst focusing on speed and uptime."

I'm not sure if I completely agree with the implication that hardware infrastructure and network reliability trumps usability. For me, a site that is designed badly or behaves badly on the browser side is a greater offense than a site that loads a little slower than most.

Navigation is but a portion of layout. Other studies have shown that the brain subconsciously identifies all the major areas of a web page (header, navigation, main content, ancillary content) in 1/20 of a second after the page loads, and that the common practice of placing navigation/secondary content a left-hand column causes people to ignore anything in the right-side column (a phenomenon known as "right side blindness"), because people have learned that most of the time, what's in the right-hand column is less related (if it's relevant at all) to their task at hand... typically third party banners or other cruft.

I hope that the conclusion is that modern, CSS driven, user-centric designs are less stress inducing than bloated, image-laden table layouts, but I get the feeling that the reseearchers aren't prepared to commit to saying it.

Re:I'd like to read the report (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310132)

I get very irritated when I select a web address and watch the status bar display "loading n of 180" for minutes at a time, because the web page design was broken down into hundreds of components, scattered across numerous sites, some of which are down or have flakey connections to the Internet. I'd rather have fast, complete, and a bit ugly.

Re:I'd like to read the report (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17310350)

"The message is clear: Businesses need to provide simple and easy-to-navigate layouts, whilst focusing on speed and uptime."

I'm not sure if I completely agree with the implication that hardware infrastructure and network reliability trumps usability. For me, a site that is designed badly or behaves badly on the browser side is a greater offense than a site that loads a little slower than most.
Simple and easy to navigate is less likely to bork the server, thus providing the speed and uptime.

Re:I'd like to read the report (3, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310464)

I'm not sure if I completely agree with the implication that hardware infrastructure and network reliability trumps usability. For me, a site that is designed badly or behaves badly on the browser side is a greater offense than a site that loads a little slower than most.

Ah, but you're not in the server hardware business. From the business name, it sounds like the guy you were quoting (whose company commissioned the study) is in exactly that business.

Navigation is but a portion of layout. Other studies have shown that the brain subconsciously identifies all the major areas of a web page (header, navigation, main content, ancillary content) in 1/20 of a second after the page loads, and that the common practice of placing navigation/secondary content a left-hand column causes people to ignore anything in the right-side column (a phenomenon known as "right side blindness"), because people have learned that most of the time, what's in the right-hand column is less related (if it's relevant at all) to their task at hand... typically third party banners or other cruft.

In one of the few articles worth reading on UseIT [useit.com] in recent years, Jakob Nielsen describes the results of their eye-tracking studies into how users read web pages [useit.com] as an "F" shape. Perhaps unsurprisingly, when you look at some real pages with the eye-tracking data, you see a combination of several effects: the user typically scans across for selected lines (headings?) but less so as they get further down the page, scans the left side of the main column and any extra column to the left (usually menus?), and will also focus on obviously relevant boxes to the right (shopping carts? menus?). IMHO it's worth a read if you're interested in this sort of thing.

I hope that the conclusion is that modern, CSS driven, user-centric designs are less stress inducing than bloated, image-laden table layouts, but I get the feeling that the reseearchers aren't prepared to commit to saying it.

I hope they wouldn't. After all, why should a user see any difference at all between CSS-driven and table-layout-driven sites, if the tools are used to generate the same effect? (Please don't tell me the research is really about accessibility, which is the only compelling reason I have so far seen for moving to CSS if you have an existing table-based layout on your site that works acceptably. The rest is mostly hype IME, usually proposed by people with a vested interest.)

I smell a rat (2, Insightful)

ameyer17 (935373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309876)

Rackspace Managed Hosting commissioned the study. The U.K. firm's managing director, Jacques Greyling, said the study shows that businesses selling online have a duty to provide an Internet experience "as stress-free as possible." He added, "The message is clear: Businesses need to provide simple and easy-to-navigate layouts, whilst focusing on speed and uptime."
Hmm, a web hosting company paid for this study. I don't have any less suspicion about the validity of its conclusion than I have about the Microsoft-funded "Windows has a lower total cost of ownership than Linux" studies

Re:I smell a rat (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310218)

I don't have any less suspicion about the validity of its conclusion than I have about the Microsoft-funded "Windows has a lower total cost of ownership than Linux" studies


They also stated everyone suffers at one time or another. Bad web pages are part of the internet. I realise that. I typicaly open a dozen tabs at once. I don't wait for pages. It's like sitting in a traffic jam. Surfing the web is more like channel surfing. If one channel is plugged up with commercials, you move on and check it later. Tabs which have loaded I read. Tabs that fail to load in a reasonable time, I close and move on.

Some links are broken. Get used to it.

YouTube Rage! (1)

slashdotmsiriv (922939) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309910)

The article mentions google as the prime example of good web design. How long will it take them
to fix that ugly, unresponsive, buggy UI of YouTube? Don't get me wrong, its basic functionality works just fine
but once you start arranging videos in playlists, favorites etc, nothing seems to work in a predictable way.
Your playlist selections appear not to have been saved and then songs appear in it out of the blue in the future.
There is really no synchronization between a user's settings and what eventually makes it in the downloaded page.

Even worse the links to "my favorites" etc disappears from the web page once you view a video. You need to go back to
your account and select options from there.

Needless to say that google video's site is much much better, faster and not buggy at all.
I especially adore their player's random access feature and that it seems to download faster and be less
CPU intensive. I would not mind at all if they just incorporate the youtube user accounts, the uploaded videos
the domain name and add the expensive youtube servers to their grid. Then completely get rid off all
the software developed for YouTube's site and simply take example from some of their nice features such
as comments on videos.

Re:YouTube Rage! (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310228)

You need to go back to
your account and select options from there.


I don't have an account. Since the account settings appear to be broken, I won't bother getting an account.

Websites?! Try Operating Systems! (1)

nilbog (732352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309918)

Forget webshites - what makes my blood boil is operating systems. When I'm really working hard on something and get stopped up for a very long time trying to coerce the operating system into doing what I want I can get really frustrated. There is an obvious rise in blood pressure, my muscles tighten up, and if it's really bad I start to get light headed.

This is true across all things - they can make your frustrated. That's part of life. The amount of frustration something gives you is a good measurement of how crappy or good it is.

I'm not saying which operating system causes me so much aggravation on a regular basis - I don't want to be marked down as a troll, you know. But I will say that it rhymes with Bicrosoft Mindoze.

Re:Websites?! Try Operating Systems! (4, Funny)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310112)

You tell the truth. I have considered bagging myself a few IE and Windows devs myself...but the whole killing is a crime thing works against that.

No way! Someone did "user testing" of websites? (5, Informative)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309942)

Whoa. That's some advanced sheot!

It's hard-core science, too. Look at the scientifical results:

The report stated, "Some changes in muscle tension were quite dramatic While this was happening, the participants faces also tensed visibly, with the teeth clenched together and the muscles around the mouth becoming taught. These are physically uncomfortable situations that reduce concentration and increase feelings of anger."

I'm surprised that nobody [useit.com] has ever [websiteoptimization.com] done anything [sensible.com] like this before!

Wow! It found exactly what it was paid to find? (5, Insightful)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309976)

...commissioned by Rackspace Managed Hosting...

And from the article, "What's the root cause of Mouse Rage Syndrome? It's primarily caused by badly ... hosted Web sites". "And, of course, the killer cause: site unavailability.", "Unfortunately, many Web sites and their servers cannot deliver this."

Weirdest thing, a study bought (sorry, "paid for") by a managed hosting company found that poorly hosted sites are a bad thing.

Whatever's next? Will a Microsoft funded study find that Windows has a lower total cost of ownership than Linux? A UK music industry funded study will find that most people support an extension of copyright terms? A Lybian court will find Bulgarian nurses guilty of infecting children with a strain of HIV that's been around since before the nurses entered the country and that it's absolutely nothing to do with pre-existing poor hygene conditions at the Lybian hospital? Those that want funding under the Bush administration will find Climate Change isn't real? Why on earth aren't hundreds of scientists speaking out and decrying such blatantly biased research?

Crazy.

Relaxing Imaginery (1)

giantpencil (990559) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310008)

IMHO these people that conducted the study need to spend their time elsewhere. For all those males out there, I take this moment to remind you all that viewing female breasts for 10 minutes a day is proven to relax you. I should know someone sent me the "Powerpoint", and yes I did some personal study :) It really does work.

Hazzardous to health (2, Interesting)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310062)

I'm waiting for some one to have an epileptic fit from all the flashing banners on some sites.

Age of specialization !!! (1)

achten (1032738) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310074)

Welcome to mouse-rage. Each thing you do or do not do can be a reason for stress. It does not matter where the provocation comes from. Stress comes from your own reaction to the external events as the Gautam the Buddha explained long back. The same set of people getting hyper over bad web-sites will curse while they at the steering wheel.

Bwhaha (1)

malkir (1031750) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310080)

I'll simply e-mail a link to a poorly designed website to my professors and render them incapable of teaching the next day!

Correlation != Causation (1)

RandomPrecision (911416) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310092)

Or maybe people with poor immune, cardiovascular, and nervous systems happen to frequent sites that implement these offending designs.

Re:Correlation != Causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17310142)

We know they at least have brain damage!

Class-action suits would be bad... (1)

mi (197448) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310114)

But I dread the government's intervention even more. Having dealt with smoking, they are already after trans-fats. Web-sites can't be far down the list.

#1 offender: (5, Insightful)

lidocaineus (661282) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310150)

Amazon.com

Decent selection (on certain things) and prices that are worth considering (especially when on sale). But...

1) Why does the search suck? Why can I not easily differentiate between different versions of the same product? The worst is when you do this with books. Sometimes you'll get screens of the seemingly same item, and the differences are slight, such as publication edition, extras included, hardback, or paperback... but NONE OF THAT SHOWS UP. You have to click on each result and dig down HARD to find the difference.

2) Why is it once I enter one of the sections (such as books) by selecting the drop down menu in the search area (books) and entering a query, I can no longer search the music section the same way? Suddenly the search drop down menu changes to book subsections and a generic, whole sitewide 'amazon.com' search. I can either take my chances with the site wide search, or click on the home page button and do the search again with the correct section selected.

2) Why is there SO MUCH CRAP all over the place?

I tend to avoid amazon simply because of interface aggravation, especially when I can help out a local seller. It's a testimony to the crappiness of amazon that the balance of getting in a car/taking public trans and visiting my (albeit awesome) local booksellers beats out rolling out of bed, strugglign to find what I need at their online store, and wrestling with the checkout clicks...

Btw, I do like the minimal amazon search that is available, but it doesn't alleviate any of the above since you still have to hit the site after the results are obtained.

What a disappointment (1)

shanen (462549) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310154)

I read the comments in search of "you ain't seen nothing yet" examples, but nadda. Come on, can't we do better (= worse) than the original article? So much for the collective wisdom of /.

Lag (1)

CriminalNerd (882826) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310188)


"The test results indicate that users want Google-style speed, function, and accuracy from all of the Web sites they visit, and they want it now," according to the SIRC report. "Unfortunately, many Web sites and their servers cannot deliver this."

So...in short, this "Mouse Rage Syndrome" is caused because of lag. The researchers should have gotten about 24 Counter-Strike players to play and then make only ONE user have a three-digit ping. "Rage" would be an understatement when explaining the resulting chaos.

Mouse Rage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17310212)

Pinky,are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Aha (1)

retro128 (318602) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310346)

Why does my blood pressure rise when I go to MySpace? Is it the inane musings of the attention whores, the crappy music, or the terrible, terrible web pages?

Well I guess the bottom line is that if I ever want a primo aneuysm I know where to go.

mouse rage (1)

JimBobJoe (2758) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310364)

How long before the first class action suit in the U.S. over bad Web site design?

The next time Forbes.com prints an article that is really compelling and yet is horribly handicapped by forcing the user to learn information by a slideshow interface that just plain sucks.

Even when you can operate the slideshow at your own speed, the slideshow completely refreshes the window you're looking at (I presume it's so that an article with a list can show off much more advertising than if the list were presented normally.) It's irritating on good days, painful on bad when the connection on my end or their end is slow.

internal corporate sites (3, Informative)

loudmax (243935) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310420)

The worst offenders are internal corporate sites built on expensive proprietary technology that offers a lot of heavy framework so business analysts can design byzantine workflows. While the client user interface may be theoretically "web-based" it isn't regular old HTML. It has to be client-side java, or at the very least, lots and lots of javascript, so it feels like client-side java. All this is for filling out forms and navigation, mind you, we're not talking fancy graphics or AJAX or anything. Naturally, these sites are IE-only, and very particular about which version of IE at that.

This kind of site couldn't survive for long outside a corporate firewall. Too slow, bloated, difficult to navigate, unsecure, and downright ugly. But when your paycheck depends on using a mandated interface to fill out a trouble ticket, timesheet, or expense report, you just click and bear it.

Oh yeah, in my job I support a site like this. The back end isn't any better.

hardware replacement (1)

martin (1336) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310450)

Was talking to one of remote offices in Continental Europe last week, and the boss was complaining his docking station for his laptop didn't work..

turned out his keyboard was broke due to him smashing it on desk. Apparently two of the 3 people in that office are also on their third mouse in a year!

nothing to do with Websites, just M$-Windoze giving hassle - mind you they had problems with their Macs previously as well...

 

Get a 'Clue' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17310510)

It was the webmaster, in the bedroom, with a Flash based site about home electronics...

Get some perspective (2, Insightful)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#17310650)

Some people have no roof over their heads
Some people can't feed their kids
Some people are looking at dead farms in the desert wondering what to do next
Some people have cancer
Some people have reasons to get angry
Looking at a badly designed website isn't one of them. If this makes you angry you really need to ask yourself WTF is wrong with yourself?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...