Wow...5 of the 10? This site is very well done from my "vast" experience. What 5? I have only noticed issue in my decision to use the dreaded microsoft product...you know the one...

Here's to 50%.

Yeah, which 5? I'm always a little jealous of your site design.

Besides, I don't see "lack of content" on that list, anyway. :-)

I agree with Mark. What 5?

I read that list yesterday, via Freshblog I think. I have to say, I don't agree with the browser incompatibility item. It's the whole "playing to the least common denominator" thing. I guess sometimes you have to do that, but when Firefox and now Opera are free, the only constraint is the operating system, and even that's not too big a hurdle anymore.

And as Mark pointed out, the Browser That Shall Not Be Named doesn't render the blog unreadable, it simply makes it more visually... arresting.

Geez. I'm leaving a lot of words on your blog. Maybe I should get my own or something.

Denise! Where you been, girl?

Anyway, I'm not sure that I want to be airing my dirty laundry for you and Mark. Maybe I should make it a contest. ;-)

I'll give you a hint, though. I don't use Flash, and the only form on the site is the search form and with just one blank, it would be hard to consider it "cumbersome."

A contest! What's the prize?

I've been spending a lot of time battling blog gremlins. They're all dead now, for the moment.

If I may add one other mistake to Mr. Nielsen's list:

improper/ misused Java

I've been able to endure most of the top 10 without too much grief. However, I've seen nothing that causes a browser or full sytem crash faster than bad Java.

The worst part is when (if) the Java finally does load, it's invariably for some pointless animation or cheesy reactive buttons that add absolutely nothing to the site.

A contest! What's the prize?

On second thought, forget that idea. I'm still trying to pay off your Blogathon iTunes Gift Certificate. ;-)

improper/ misused Java

I have to admit that I rarely encounter this as a problem that crashes my browser or system. But I do agree that it all too frequently results in worthless eye candy (and even that's a charitable description).

Re: Number 3: Flash

It should actually be #1.

On the internet, the only thing clicked on more than "Free Pr0n" is "Skip Intro".

"On the internet, the only thing clicked on more than "Free Pr0n" is "Skip Intro"." I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Do those fancy flash intros serve any purpose other that to employ a large number of people desinging intros that are never seen?

I don't know if this is considered part of No. 4 or not, but I would add, "not updated regularly". When I go to a website that hasn't been updated for a long time, I'm not very likely to stick around long. Plus, it's very frustrating if half of the contact information lists people that don't even work there anymore.

Nat, as Nielsen points out on his site, the use of Flash splash is becoming increasingly infrequent (although, somewhat ironically, on Monday I talked a client out of a splash page for his new site), and that's probably why it didn't rank higher. But Flash does have its uses, especially for showcasing products details on ecommerce sites. When it's done well and used properly, there's no suitable substitute.

John, the "cobweb" phenomenon to which you refer, while certainly valid in its own right, is not a design problem. A designer can turn over a great site to the owner, but it's out of his or her hands after that as to how it's updated. (The exception would be if the site was designed so poorly that no one else could figure out how to update it. Related Reference: Microsoft FrontPage)

Which 5? Hmm...

Mr. Nielsen used to demand the old Mosaic/Netscape blue/red/purple links with underlines. I see he's relented somewhat. but in the articles, he's complain that the difference between visited and unvisited links is not significant enough.
So, maybe that's one...

You use fixed-width columns. (never did understand why that's bad, so long as you choose a sensible width, like you have)
Abbye photos come in only one size.

I count three.

Not that I'd hold any of those against you. I don't much care for Mr. Nielsen's design advice.

Eric: That's true, the cobweb is not the designer's fault. Still, I can't help but wonder what people are thinking. They pay a guy (or girl) to design a great looking site, then let it sit for years? Makes not sense to me.

Brian, the fixed width issue is not...in my opinion, anyway...relevant to blogs. In fact, any text-heavy website should use fixed width columns for the text, even if they flow the rest of the site content. There's a reason that newspapers employ relatively narrow columns of text: it's much easier for people to read. The eye can travel from one line to the next much more efficiently.

The other flaw in the argument for fluid webpages is that just because one has a high resolution monitor doesn't mean that the whole screen is used for the browser window. I have a 1280x1024 monitor, but I keep my browser window at something closer to 800 pixels wide...or less. I switch between apps too often to take up all the screen real estate with a browser window.

John, you've raised a question for the ages. I can't tell you how many of my clients fall into that category, and I'm always puzzled and amazed by their lack of caring or perceptiveness. It's like the website falls to dead last on every list of priorities. I'm not saying that it should be at the top of the list, but too often they're neglecting what could be a valuable resource for their business.