Before reviewing a restaurant, I always check it out online. I try to avoid reading other reviews because I don't want them to colour my opinion, but I do look for information on the restaurant's website and Facebook page. All I really want is the name of the restaurant, address, phone number, opening hours, booking information and menu. Almost everything else is superfluous.
I realise that the developer who creates a website is unlikely to be a chef but surely someone from the restaurant has to approve the site's design and other elements? Failing to do so is a recipe for disaster.
A website is often the first impression a diner gets of a restaurant - so why are many of them downright infuriating? A website should make information as accessible as possible but often the designers seem to be playing hide and seek with the details.
Many have Flash animation that takes ages to download. I don't want to be forced to watch a film before I can access the menu. If I wanted to see the chef foraging for ingredients or smouldering into the camera while showing off his tattoos, I'd go to YouTube.
Some websites blast out music at such a high volume (like those television commercials that are twice as loud as the programme they are interrupting) it almost bursts the computer's speakers (not to mention your eardrums).
One restaurant's website annoyed me so much I deleted it from my list of places to review: you had to use the cursor to chase icons as they flitted across the page. Another had dozens of unlabelled icons - you had to guess which ones to click on to get the menu, contact details and all the other important information. The remaining icons were irrelevant to the restaurant: why did the owner think I'd care about what designers, cars and films he likes? My sole concern is the food.