Of course, tastes differ -- but I found this painful to look at, for the following reasons:
Hard to read font, capitalization and color-saturation choices. Inefficient spacing/sizing requiring more scrolling and mousing to use. Nonstandard 'check' indicator which is farther from its label than usual on-the-left practice. Large floating fixed footer not seeming to provide value commensurate with its placement. 'About' slide-out that's impossible for me to close without major window fussing (maximize window, close row of open tabs).
Feature request: provide checklist items as plain text.
My main issue was the needless animation in the background.
Safari 5 on a fast Core 2 Duo is plenty usable with it, but when my scroll framerate seemingly goes from 60fps to 30, it's not worth it. Smooth scrolling is just too high on my UX priorities list.
My one criticism is that I find the all-caps League Gothic much too difficult to read here. A non-condensed sans-serif would be a lot easier on the eyes.
Agreed. This looks like one of those instances where the designer went for form and completely forgot about function. It looks nice, at a glance, but actually reading it is difficult.
Apart from that, I think a lot of those options should be either set to N/A automatically, or some kind of low priority or second round testing. It's comprehensive, I'll give it that; but it's just too visually dense.
Nice, but it features one if my pet hates - field errors in modal dialogs. This requires the user to memorise a list of errors (4 in this example) but you can't act on the message until you've clicked OK, and once you dismiss the dialog, you lose the message.
Investigate "aggressive degradation". It revolves around the principle of not stressing over delivering the same exact functionality - but delivering something that DOES work in its simplest forms. A GIF when a PNG would look nicer. Squared off corners when border-radius would look nicer and you can't be bothered with background images and floats (yes I am aware this is an IE-wide problem).
In 2010, after Microsoft sent flowers to IE6's funeral[1] we have been able to use that anecdote to persuade clients to go a step further and actively sign off that IE6 is not supported.
At the least, "Displays and functions correctly in IE6" should be defaulted to "N/A", which would also help make the "N/A" option more discoverable.
I had the same reaction when I saw the on/off buttons. For a second I thought they were so advanced they had designed the site to work with the iphone/ipad. Alas, it's just a regular webpage which relies on mouseover to function.
Similar to that 19th century as a inflationary time for typography, why in our time eye candies like this, with low legibility, are considered as good design...
For some of the checklist items, I don't think "yes" and "no" are the appropriate options. There really should be a 3rd... "unknown" or "not reviewed" or something like that. "All text free from spelling errors" doesn't make sense to have "no". It might be free from spelling errors, we just haven't checked it yet.
Do people really spend their time making sites like these for attention? We get it, you're good at using Photoshop and maybe CSS. These sites are useless, why would anyone waste their time making them?
Do people really spend their time criticizing others on HN? We get it, you're too busy and smart for such tomfoolery. :)
Seriously, whoever made this did it as a fun exercise. They probably have to make boring forms at work and wanted to see how extreme they could go in making something attractive (whether it's actually attractive is open for discussion). Maybe they learned something they can use; maybe others will be inspired.
Haven't you ever tinkered with something that wasn't strictly necessary? If not, how do you learn what's possible?
Well, seems for this app, it would still have some stuff on it's checklist to check off...it indeed looks nice, but not very flexible to what designers might do.
This has got to be the move over-engineered checklist I've ever seen in my life. What's wrong with a text file of all these things? It's not even complete.
Yes, particularly if you're working with Javascript. I missed this once and had a big client tell me a feature was not working in FireFox on XP. Worked fine on OS X.
Turns out the Windows version of FireFox had a bug with setInterval() on windows that would cause it to fire irregularly...
I knew these "tips" when I was 16 after playing with HTML/CSS for a few weeks. These are obvious no brainers for anyone that has any business doing anything web related.
Descriptive 404, obvious SEO things that just make sense to do anyway, alt text?
Who needs a checklist to do these things? And one that takes 6 seconds to load in all the JS at that. (I'm not one to complain about JS usually but the scripts were working for a significant and noticeable amount of time)
With no offense meant, with just a reasonable and pragmatic perspective on the whole thing, I think the (WTF?) button itself provides the best response to this.
Hard to read font, capitalization and color-saturation choices. Inefficient spacing/sizing requiring more scrolling and mousing to use. Nonstandard 'check' indicator which is farther from its label than usual on-the-left practice. Large floating fixed footer not seeming to provide value commensurate with its placement. 'About' slide-out that's impossible for me to close without major window fussing (maximize window, close row of open tabs).
Feature request: provide checklist items as plain text.