that's a very technical way of looking at it. i'm not only talking about how a site works in a particular browser but if it's actually good or not.
mainly the sites i have in my mind are sites where you don't choose the service based on the web-service and you end up with a really sucky service that you can't leave. for example:
- banks
- utilites companies
- cellphone carriers
- government sites
- ecommerce sites (where you're a customer in the physical store)
Yeah, I didn't phrase it right. What I suggested wasn't exactly the same thing, but it seemed more actionable.
What constitutes 'sucky' is often subjective and open to interpretation. You risk ending up as just another review site.
Defining sucks as 'broken', however, means focussing on things like "why the heck doesn't submit work here?" and so on. These websites have all been tested, even at the most monopolistic places. They just haven't been tested on some combination of browser and platform.
So that's how I made the subconscious transition from your idea to mine :)
mainly the sites i have in my mind are sites where you don't choose the service based on the web-service and you end up with a really sucky service that you can't leave. for example: - banks - utilites companies - cellphone carriers - government sites - ecommerce sites (where you're a customer in the physical store)
etc