Monday, June 8, 2009

Ineffective websites

Are there websites that you visit that are ineffective?
Maybe they do not respond to their audience or the content is really outdated.
Do you have some examples of ineffective websites?


Imitation Cherry Blossom said...
--Chrisanne's post

Lark- New Media, New Markets said...

Since I don't surf the internet as much as the average person, it was difficult to find three websites that would be considered "ineffective". However, I do remember a few sites that friends and family dislike for visual, as well as navigational, reasons. They are the following:

Jordan's Furniture (
A co-worker of mine was looking for furniture and completely harangued the Jordan's website. The homepage is pretty standard and at first it looks professional and easy to navigate. However, if you pick a category (for instance, living rooms) and select a subcategory (perhaps sofas) you are brought to yet another standard page with thumbnail images. The sofas are not arranged by designer (which should be a search option for those interested in one particular company) and the photographs are a bad resolution. Also, scattered throughout the thumbnails are pictures of full rooms with furniture. It is completely random amongst the other thumbnails of single couches. Visually, the site is a mess. It looks like the furniture was just cropped out of a photo and put in a white background. The only good thing is the written descriptions of the furniture. Overall, I think the site needs an overhaul and should take advice from the Bernie and Phyls website ( Although they don't have a "shop by designer" option, the navigation and photos are more effective.

TJMaxx (
I know the point of TJ Maxx is that their inventory always changes, but their website just seems pointless. It seems like a place where people can sign up to get coupons but not to look at clothing, accessories or home goods. In a few categories they list maybe 4 products for sale. Of course it also gives you a place to sign up for a TJMaxx credit card or to purchase gift cards. . . but that's it. Overall they could be getting more people interested if they had more listed on the website. I'm guessing the same goes for Mashalls, which is owned by the same people. I think they could market themselves better if they followed H&M's website where men and women can use a virtual body and try on clothes online. It's fun, interactive and lets people know what's in style and in season.

HavenWorks (
I had trouble thinking of a third ineffective website so I decided to Google the phrase "name a poorly designed website" and this was the first entry that popped up. I took a look and boy...this is DEFINITELY one of the worst websites ever created. It is obviously a private webpage so some slack should be given for that, BUT it completely misses the mark. First of all, it's a website devoted to politics, but it's literally impossible to read anything that's posted. It uses tables to segment the text, but instead of being broken up the text goes allllllll the way down the page to the point where you need to scroll. The color choices are too bright and too many are used. The images are unecessary and compltey clutter the homepage. It's difficult to see where the main navigation buttons are because there is so much going on around them. It looks like the designer attempted to make this an online newspaper but the headings aren't clearly delineated. Each topic should have a seprate navigation button (i.e. one for World News, Opinion, Local News, etc). Otherwise the message gets lost and the reader will lose complete interest. Images should be few and should be chosen for effectiveness, not to take up space. Overall, this site is a disaster. Check it out for yourself and judge. I dare you.

summer school geek said...

Kyle Linn MacQueen said...

Kyle Linn MacQueen response:

CopperTop said...

Aileen Hanuszek's Post

bill said...

Today, I went on Google and typed in "health" for search and looked at the top 50 sites that came up. The good news is that most of the sites (particularly those in the top 30) are very effective in terms of appealing to the audience seeking information about health topics and concerns. They are generally visually appealing with good use of pictures and graphics, and well-written and easy to read. I found them interesting and relevant - often with updated current information on swine flu or other concerns. Many are interactive with multimedia presentations and the ability to get personalized information.
There are several sites (mostly in the 31-50 group) that are ineffective. Here are three:
#34 Health Affairs, The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere, at is a website geared to health policy wonks. However, that does not mean it has to be unattractive. There is no effective use of color, no use of pictures or graphics. There is nothing interesting or entertaining about the site. It's just about "the facts".
#49 CDC - National Center for Health Statistics, at is a government website geared to health statisticians. Statistics are important to guide policy decisions that affect real people. They could be presented in an interesting way. This site does not do that. The site is not particularly inviting, does not use color well, does not use pictures or graphics, is kind of cluttered and contains nothing out of the ordinary. It's just reams of data.
#50 Washington State Department of Health, at is another government website, this time at the state level. However, the audience for this website is much broader, including the general public. The site is visually unappealing, has poor use of color, limited use of photos and graphics, and is cluttered. It is a typical government web site, but that is not a valid excuse.

lisag41484 said...

ML said...

mariel lopez

Adam said... Adam's blog.

With the multitude of websites out there, there are bound to be a few that fail to capture their intended audiences or maybe they scare away the viewer who stumbled upon the site by accident after a Google search. I began my morning by searching for some of these ineffective websites to see what was out there.

I first Googled 'sports websites' and after searching through a few on the list I found a pretty bad one in my humble opinion -
This sports website is ineffective for a few different reasons. First, its way too cluttered. The actual content is overwhelming and gives me a headache just trying to search around the site. Also, there is just too many ads. The whole backdrop of the site is an ad for razor blades. Next, the navigation bar with a vertical drop-down menu interferes with clicking around. Its too sensitive. Every time I came even relatively close to the long horizontal navigation bar the menu would drop down. The site also has too many pic's and ads which cause it to constantly reload!
This is very annoying and prompts me to immediately go to another site

I next searched for 'civil war websites' and found another ineffective website that doesn't accomplish what the creator intended -
This site's main problem is the choice of color for the content and links. Its hard for me to read and someone with minor eye problems probably wouldn't be able to read it at all. They use a very light brown color for the links etc. The Civil War site also strangely includes a user poll that asks a question about health care reform, not a military or war question.

I found a third ineffective website while searching for 'car websites.' The site I found was for Edmunds, which is a site for people looking for used cars, prices of cars, and new car reviews, info etc. -
The reason I choose this as an ineffective site is because the home page is way too cluttered. Granted, the site does offer a vast amount of information and tools to answer any of your car-related queries - but most all of this is offered on the home page. Also, the review section was difficult to search through to find the specific car reviews you were looking for.

Anonymous said...

Beth said...

Blog No. 4 - Three Ineffective Websites

Three ineffective websites that come to mind are:

American Express Travel website - with all of the pop ups and messaging, I think this website can be misleading and thus, has turned me off from using their services or information.

Previous Ann Taylor website - "shopping" around the site was cumbersome and never stayed on the site long. They recently revamped the site from a "shopper" mentailty and it has greatly improved the experience. - for email purposes, the site is distracting and there are questionable ads, in my opinion, on the opening page to your inbox. I don't care for this at all but that's where I can access email when I'm not home.
Posted by Beth at 1:56 PM

Dreamer said...

Blog 4 from Nicoleta posted on

Gina E. said...
--Gina E

Beth said...

Blog No. 5: Effective and Ineffective use of PR online

Effective use of PR online:

U.S. Airways - Captain Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger's return to work after landing plan in the Hudson River. This site outlines events, provides accessibility to his day back and he can be tracked on Twitter.

Following the trusted pilot's return is good for the airline for two reasons: 1) to mention U.S. Airways in a very positive way -- this was picked up by the press and 2) gives some prospective flyers reasons to pick U.S. Airways over the competition. They may feel U.S. Airways is the safer airline.

Ineffective use of PR online:
Northpoint condominiums -, they have currently made some progress in the positioning of their development and that is not represented on their website. This is a missed opportunity to reach residential buyers and commercial land/property owners. In the real estate market, there is a negative connotation with the development in terms of the ownership status and that impacts the development's growth. Since they've made progress, it is an opportunity to dispel inaccuracies. There is no mention of their progress on the website.

Chancy HW Assignments said... and