We all know the web, don't we. Hell, if we didn't, then you wouldn't be reading this now!
It's when you go to that site whose design seemed to be done by somebody who just doesn't care that you've only got a 28.8 modem and limited time to work out what's going on. I'm talking about the site with such a poor interface design you end up spending most of your time trying to work out where the hell the information you want is. Probably one of the most abused HTML features have to be frames. Sometimes they're really well used to offer a constant menu down one side which is really useful. Sometimes they split the screen into seven so if you're using a 640x480 screen you end up with a grid of small windows, all with scroll bars.Nintendo USA are guilty of this. Usually frames are just slow and pointless.
Those web sites which are exploding with Java applets and even worse - MIDI soundtracks!
Have you been caught in a link circle? This is where you maybe see a link that sounds good, and follow it, only to find out that there's another link, and no real content to look at, and you find yourself chasing links round in circles, and all you've been shown about 300 adverts in the process. Also, there are those sites which are just links to other sites, but make it look as if it's their content. Sickening. If I only wanted links, I'd go to Yahoo!. I know that the source of HTML is to link (as I did there with Yahoo), but I'm talking about lists of links, to make it look as if there is a lot of content on the site.
I haven't seen as many of these recently, but they still do exist, and I was guilty up until a few months ago. Those button GIF's from Microsoft and Netscape saying "get me NOW!". I can understand the use of buttons for links, because they provide a recognisable brand, but why do these browser ad buttons have to be accompanied by 'best viewed in IE/Netscape'. Surely in a HTML standards world, they should look about the same?