You are here:
  1. Home
  2. Blog
  3. Interwebs
  4. New Entry Category: Pants

New Entry Category: Pants

 |  Interwebs

Blogging twice in one day? What is the world coming to? Yes, that means there’s a post below this one. Don’t forget to read it and comment on that one too. :P

Anyway, back on topic — I have a new category! For those of you who couldn’t immediately guess, my new category is called Pants. It is not a reason for me to start showing off my underwear (or trousers, you English-language butchering Americans), but rather a ‘quick-mention’ category where I blog about a particular website that has annoyed me or is just generally pants, but not pants enough to review. And that’s pants as in crap, not the trousers/underwear this time.

Today we’re starting with: S A C H A * D E A N * B I Y A N
Without bitching too much about the fact that they have a splash page, the main reason why this is the first Pants Spotlight is because of the ridiculous you-can’t-actually-read-me disclaimer. The fact that I am on a laptop which automatically renders everything 3 shades brighter is irrelevant — the text is decidely tiny and that light grey colour does not go well on a white background. Note to functionality-challenged people: disclaimers should be bigger, and clearer (clearer? more clear?) than flea poop.

And a special award for the first Pants category winner:

'jem thinks my site is pants' award

No stealing my award now, people.

Jem Turner jem@jemjabella.co.uk +44(0)7521056376

34 comments so far

  1. Chrissy said:

    But why would you give away cute undies like that? You should google up some undies that have a poo skid in them and have THAT be the pants award.

  2. Gemma said:

    What a load of trash. Imagemap without alternate text, site opens in popup window… and you have to love those people who write their [title] tags l i k e t h i s. It’s such a bore if non-visual user agents can actually read the site’s title properly. Fangs interpreted the homepage like this: ‘Page has one linkS A C H A star D E A N star B I Y A N dash Internet ExplorerTable with one column and four rowsTable with one column and three rowsTable with one column and one rowLinkGraphic slash designed underline produced underline firstborn underline invert underline grey.gifTable endTable endTable end’ Heh. Obviously, a photography portfolio doesn’t have to worry so much about catering to people with visual problems. That doesn’t excuse the deprecated tag soup code, though. Some design shops just rip their clients off.

  3. Anne said:

    Ack. I hate sites like that. Disgusting looking women, anyways. I bet they’re computer-generated. (Oh, but I’m American and I call undies undies, not trousers. I thought all Americans called them underwear or underpants! lol)

  4. Rosemarie said:

    I’m Canadian and call them underwear. I know some people who call ’em panties, which drives me crazy and makes me think of some 3 year old girl.

  5. Meggan said:

    Yeah, don’t know where trousers is coming from. Trousers to me are like, um, pants, which are like long shorts. Not underwear, undies, or panties. Heh. The navigation once you click on the oh-so-descriptive “lucid” link makes me cry. It’s a bunch of nameless, thumbnail-less squares so you have no idea what you’re getting, and have to roll your mouse elsewhere to see the darkened shade which apparently indicates you’ve already seen that photo. What a pain. Also, the music. Ugh.

  6. Vixx said:

    Am I the only one who can’t actually figure out what the eff this site is about?! V xx [Edit] Jem HOW DARE you censor my use of the eff word!! YOU KNOW I CAN’T COPE WITHOUT IT!

  7. Carina said:

    You have to admit- the average internet user (like my friends) would like that website. I however, dislike it because of the frequent ‘loading’ things. I was recently recieved by ‘Uptown Reviews’ (uptownreviews.sitesled.com

  8. Carina said:

    Oops, accidently clicked the ‘add comment’ button. Sorry about that. Anyway, the reviewer told me to add a splash page, colored scrollbars and blends. If you’re still looking for shit websites, I beg you to use that one.

  9. Vera said:

    *grins* In my experience, disclaimers that do not have a separate page, are SUPPOSED to be unreadable… I’ve never come accross one that wasn’t so tiny I had to squint to read the first word… and then I gave up.

  10. Jess said:

    Trousers? I thought those were pants, too. I call underwear underwear. From a standpoint of someone who’s just looking at the content instead of accessibility, I do like the design. I guess you have to have good memory to figure out which one of those squres you’ve clicked, though. I still can’t figure out what that site is about…

  11. Tracey said:

    *giggles* Excellent idea, but I agree with Chrissy! Why pretty underwear like that? Find some extra large granny undies to give to them!

  12. Belinda said:

    While the splash page is readable from my computer the font is just irritatingly small. Maybe because using small text as textures/backgrounds seems to be all the rage nowadays, I automatically skipedp reading all that because it subconsciously registered to be a non-important image. The imagefied, anti-aliasedness makes it even more graphics-like. It took me ages to figure out how to get in too until I realise that the link in is PART of the silly disclaimer.

  13. Kathleen said:

    Woah, nelly! I am still trying to grasp the whole pants thing. So you are saying that pants=underwear? I just say pants means pants. But if you Brits call pants underwear, what do you call your underpants? A question to ponder…

  14. Mariah said:

    I always thought trousers were like pants… and underwear (ug.. “panties” what a stupid word) are well, the underwear. Though by that definition longjohns are underwear too. My foreign exchange student from Austria calls pants trousers… either that or when she wanted to buy some underwear (asking for trousers) and we directed her to pants, she could have gotten very confused… Ah, Jem. What WILL you come up with next.

  15. Gemma said:

    I think that some people are confused over what Jem said. She didn’t mean that in Brit-speak, ‘trousers’ means underwear (it doesn’t); she meant that she wasn’t using the word ‘pants’ in the US sense, to mean ‘trousers’. So that by the word ‘pants’ she meant neither underclothes *nor* trousers.

  16. Jordie said:

    All this discussion of pants makes me confused. I just called pants-pants “pants”. Uh, yeah. I don’t know anyone who calls them trousers. How confusing would it be if we started calling them “pantaloons”? But pants in this context is an adjective that describes something is just bad or lame, hence “It’s pants.” BTW, it is “clearer”, not more clear. You had the same problem with the word “briefer” ages back. :P As for me, I still can’t figure out if a computer mouse is “mice” or “mouses” in plural form. As for the site… I took one look at the model on the splash page and thought it was a site dedicated to pantomimes. And a very butch pantomime, by the look of the knuckle guard she’s wearing. It is a she, right? I think it’s some kind of creative photography slash digital media site, but I don’t really like it. I can’t figure out which of the squares I’ve clicked on because they rearrange themselves every time you click on a new one. Very pretty to look at (and some of the pictures are real interesting), but totally inaccessible and not at all practical. Definitely deserving of a Pants Award.

  17. Stephanie said:

    Please tell me those aren’t yours. Sheer undies (pants, pantaloons, bloomers… pick your poison people ;P ) aren’t becoming on anybody. Except me, of course, because I’m perfect. (steps away before lightning strikes..)

  18. Brenda said:

    The splash page gave me the impression that it was some “professional”-looking portfolio site. Although I must say, the font size was terribly small. Then, I clicked on it, and was greeted by this gigantic pop-up. However, I didn’t get to see the rest of the site because as soon as the music came on, I closed the window. *Grins*

  19. Pauline said:

    I don’t think this is a site that was meant to cater to the normal user or for artistically challenged people like you. For one, the photographer (it’s a photography site for those who can’t figure that out) for a well known fashion photographer who already has a big following. I personally love the site although it has its obvious navigation flaws, but considering the boring HTML content that is on the WWW, i think sites like this push the limits. Just my two cents worth.

  20. Jem said:

    OoooOOooh! I didn’t realise that because I obviously don’t agree with your choice of ‘art’, that makes me artistically challenged. Obviously a differing opinion is a new concept for you. I do apologise!

  21. Sarah said:

    Dude, why does the crappy site get the snazzy skivvies? I think the award should be of raggedy granny panties with a blood-stained crotch. Give awesome sites hawt Vicky’s Secret panties!

  22. Steven said:

    My heard is almost exploding right now from the underwear conflict. For me, underwear=guy and panties=girl. Dunno why. Anyways, I didn’t go so far as to actually click anything. My poor Fx started spitting errors like crazy… What the eff (

  23. Keeshia said:

    …. All i have to say is… THE POPUP DOESN’T DESERVE A FULL SCREEN!! Ahem, sorry. I have my monitor on 2560×1600 resolution… it does not deserve even half of my screen space -_- And of course, hilarious and wonderful award (which I hope to never get ;) )

Follow on Instagram