Top 100 Best and Worst Commercial websites

[rendezvouscp]

Inspired by Doctor Q's post in the New Safari 2.0 and 1.3 Seeds thread, I'd like to start a running list of the top 100 best and worst commercial web sites. I think there are a few things to think about when you add one:

1. HTML standard. Is the site using an old standard, like 3.2, or is it using XHTML?

2. Validation. If the errors are reasonable (errors that don't actually hurt anything), then that's fine, but if it's a mess, that's a problem.

3. CSS use. Is CSS used for the styling, and is the CSS in an external file when possible?

4. JS use. Is the JS in an external file? Is the code semantic?

5. Design. There are plenty of ways to create a crappy, semantic website, and a outstanding, code-nightmare website too.

6. Accessibility. Is the code clean so that screen readers can easily navigate through it? What about alt and title text?

7. Rendering. Is the site IE specific, or does it display well for IE, Firefox, and Safari?

I'm sure there are plenty of other things to consider, but that's a starting ground. TVGuide.com is a great example of a poorly designed site.
-Chase

 

[Dane D.]

Not a bad idea

You're right TVGuide.com is too much, I didn't know what to look at or where to start. I'm still trying to clear my head after viewing that site. Expedia.com is another example of too much stuff.

 

[ham_man]

TVGuide.com is just fine. Now GoDaddy is a complete mess - worthy of #1, in my opinion...

 

[Pittsax]

I only went there briefly because I'm in the market for an *deep breath* engagement ring, and Cartier has one of the worst websites in terms of navigation. YOU try to find their engagement rings... Yeesh! What misuse of ...well...whatever the heck they used to code that thing.

 

[rendezvouscp]

You're right TVGuide.com is too much, I didn't know what to look at or where to start. I'm still trying to clear my head after viewing that site. Expedia.com is another example of too much stuff.

You might've meant this, but I just wanted to say that it was Doctor Q's suggestion, not mine. I just don't want to take credit for anything that's not mine.

The problem with TVGuide.com is shown in Doctor Q's post, and the attachment, not to mention that the source isn't pretty at all.

Expedia doesn't have a good source at all either.

I'd say shame on Microsoft because of their ugly source, but they validate and it definitely could be worse. On another note, it looks like Apple is getting on the standards board. On the front page, only the header is a table and the rest is alright. Only four errors too.
-Chase

 

[Brownie56]

yesasia.com, a place that sells products from Asia, seems to be coded badly according to your terms. A few CSS and Javascript codes are placed directly in the HTML code and not semantic. Their HTML 4.01 validation results, listed over 400 validation errors.