I think he just shot himself in the foot by cooking up a thumbnail page with heavy scaled-down images:

http://www.cuug.ab.ca/branderr/hawaii11/kapalua_11.20/

Biiiiig no-no.

And yes, my eyes do water somewhat. Hehe.

I work with usability on a professional level and have been doing so since 1995. And no, the page may not live up to today's standards. Maybe you simply weren't around back then?

I just wanted to give the guy a break — although "smug" was a, shall we say, unfortunate title for a post.

I simply took objection to the OT manner in which you replied, and also your "because I say so" phrasing, which has a faint taste of arrogance. This was originally a post about web page bloat.

That said, happy holidays! (Sincerely.)

Who's more smug; you or the OP?

This was _1993_. So the guy didn't update his page. There are a few errors. Big deal.

You make an insulting off-topic comment about usability. Who the fuck cares about your error nitpicking, taste in colours, potential neckbeard or "hardcore" user name?

Nobody, that's who.

The OP makes a valid point about lazy web designers and dirtbag coroporations who produce sites that add unwanted heavy monetizing features, drain laptop batteries, turn on loud fans, take forever to load, requiring additional action to actually see the content and in this case turned out to cost a pretty penny to half-load. And then the 300 word scraped article was probably spaced out over 15 pages.

Quite a lot of today's sites are astonishingly ugly by anybody's taste and fail to valditate any reasonable technical or usability requirements, so get lost.

How you made it to 4: Insighful is beyond me. I'm sure you can make pretty & tight web sites, but stop polluting by offering "helpful" advice or being mean to people.

*BEEP*. Your hot Ding Dong is ready.