Search this site:


December 6, 2005 12:03 AM

Broken: GPS For Less terms and conditions page

Mail_2_1 Steve Marshall writes in:

I just bought some stuff from GPS for less. I found that before you purchase the items, it displays a terms and conditions page, where the terms and conditions are displayed as white text on a white background...and you thought grey text was hard to read!


What terms and conditions, I see no terms and conditions.

Posted by: john russell at December 6, 2005 12:39 AM

Actually I think the text is in clear font, thus avoiding the white on white conundrum, and, come on, who wants to mess up the style on their site with words anyways?

Posted by: James at December 6, 2005 01:30 AM

Strangely enough, the terms and conditions are only hidden in Firefox. They appear in Opera and IE.

Looking at the source, it's obvious that it was generated with some MS Office tool. Amusingly, they also try to block right-clicking in IE, giving you a javascript error message saying, "This page is protected !"

Posted by: Karl at December 6, 2005 04:29 AM

The question is: Is this stupidity or malice, and on whose part?

Posted by: Glenn Lasher at December 6, 2005 06:40 AM

It seems submitter needs to update firefox....

(talking about the red arrow on the top right of the cap)

Posted by: Victor Z at December 6, 2005 07:37 AM

It's showing up as white on white on my firefox and it's updated completely.

Posted by: Kay at December 6, 2005 01:00 PM

I must say... that design is truly inspired (pardon the pun on the developer ).

The geniuses clearly state in their CSS that the body is {color:#fff;background-color:#fff;}. They then say that the text in question is class:MsoNormal, where the Mso stands for Microsoft Office. Somehow, I'm not surprised that non-ms products don't support the msonormal class.

Would it really kill them to have the default color and the default background be something legible?

Posted by: Jo-Pete Nelson at December 6, 2005 01:52 PM

I want to know how Steve figured this out to begin with! I never would've thought of selecting the area...

Posted by: ambrocked at December 6, 2005 02:19 PM

What would you do if you saw this?

Terms and Conditions:

I accept

Posted by: Fuzzy at December 6, 2005 02:33 PM

Glenn: If this page was about ordering I would vote for stupidity. But since white-on-white is apparently used only on the terms and conditions screen, they must want you to remain ignorant of T&Cs that are to their advantage so I vote for malice.

Posted by: Pat at December 6, 2005 02:39 PM

This reminds me of my black-on-black water filter label:

Posted by: Bob Sifniades at December 6, 2005 04:58 PM

It doesn't use MSO html in Firefox. It must be browser detection gone bad.

Posted by: xcvbxcvb at December 6, 2005 05:24 PM


After looking at the source of that frame, I want to PUKE. MS FrontPage declares the font size FOR EVERY LINE!


You'd think it'd look and say, "hey, all the lines before this one have the exact same font!", just like a human would.

In fact, that whole frame doesn't need any styling at all; it's just plain text!

FrontPage is the nemesis of web development!

Posted by: AnyKey at December 6, 2005 07:29 PM

Yes, this is an incredibly bad page, but the error causing the white-on-white layout is very simple & easy to overlook. It is from entering an attribute similar to ''. Unfortunately, that is incorrect, as it omits the '#' before the value (''). While IE ignores this and displays it in the specified color anyway, FireFox interperets the code literally, as it should, and ignores the attribute because it contains an invalid value. (If u use Macromedia Dreamweaver, u know exactly what im talking about) It is a very simple error, but should have been quickly corrected.

Posted by: Freedomlinux at December 6, 2005 07:44 PM

This gives you a reason to say that you didn't agree to anything.

Posted by: Roger at December 7, 2005 01:40 PM

That is an excellent insight, Roger! I may have to withdraw my vote for malice and change it to stupidity!

Posted by: Pat at December 7, 2005 02:51 PM

You say it wouldn't work in a non-ms browser, but it looks fine in Safari (Mac OS)

Posted by: BlastYoBoots at December 7, 2005 06:57 PM


May I thank this website for pointing this out to me. Its now been fixed!



Posted by: Kevin Sammut at December 7, 2005 06:57 PM

The W3C HTML validator finds 249 errors in the "fixed" page, 140 of which are unique.

Posted by: Chad R. Larson at December 7, 2005 08:16 PM

Oh great. Now it's white text on an absolutely hideous shade of purple.

For the LOVE of PETE! BLACK ON WHITE! It's a blinkin' legal document for Pete's sake. This is not the place for "Art."

Not to mention, why the heck is it in its own scrollable pane? All that does is encourage people NOT to read it, because they don't have to scroll their browser window down to reach the Accept button.


Posted by: Purple Dinosaur at December 9, 2005 03:20 PM

umm, guys?! they fixed it...

Posted by: amanda at December 10, 2005 04:54 PM

Comments on this entry are closed

Previous Posts: