back to Completed Reviews
Site Name: SweetMisery
Owner: Francesca
Reviewed by: Georgina
Reviewed on: 20th September 2009
Site Name
Not bad; it’s nice and easy to remember.
Coding and Validation
Your coding has 40 errors and 26 warnings.
Firstly, you need a doctype to declare your document as an HTML document. Where is it? You have the following placed incorrectly; it should be in the <head> section, and you only need one favicon code:
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://www.sweetmisery.org/favicon.ico"> <title>[ sweetmisery.org ]</title> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://www.sweetmisery.org/favicon.ico">
You are missing the fundamental doctype. The doctype below, HTML 4.01 Transitional, best matches your coding. You need to place this at the very beginning of every page, before <html>.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
You also need a character encoding to define the character set of your webpage. The most common one is UTF-8. You should place this in between the head tags.
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
Attempt to use <strong> instead of <b> and <em> instead of <i> from now on, for semantic – more meaningful – purposes. Screen readers for the blind can read this in a more meaningful manner.
Instead of using Javascript for the advertisements, which some browsers might not have, try PHP code for a random linked image.
You’re using h5 for normal text which is not recommended. Obviously it is intended for headings. You could be using <p> – in fact you should be using it. If you want to vary it, that is what classes are for.
Originally you have this mess of a h5:
h5 {
cursor:default;
font-size:10pt;
font-family:arial;
letter-spacing:0px;
line-height:11pt;
color: #808080;
padding: 3px;
font-weight: normal;
text-transform: none;
border-top: 0px dotted #000000;
border-left: 0px dotted #000000;
border-right: 0px dotted #000000;
border-bottom: 0px dotted #000000;
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px;
}
That is such a huge mess. You could clean up all this coding, making it a hell of a lot shorter, and using a class so you can use <p class="classname"> instead of the incorrectly used <h5>:
p.classname {
font: normal 10pt arial;
line-height:11pt;
color: #808080;
padding: 3px;
border: 0;
margin: 0;
}
Much neater, is it not?
Your CSS has 17 errors and 9 warnings.
I’d suggest getting rid of the scrollbars. They look terrible – the colours are too bright. The coding is invalid and they only work in Internet Explorer. There’s nothing wrong with the default scrollbar.
Your CSS isn’t clean; you can cut it down a lot and shorten it with CleanCSS. Also, you need to make sure you’re not missing any semicolons or parts of the CSS.
Rather than using a div like this, use CSS:
<div style="position:absolute; x-index:0; left:649px; width:220px; top:125px;">Change to:
#divname { position:absolute; left:649px; width:220px; top:125px; }And call on the div like so:
<div id="divname">
This is called assigning an ID, which you can read more about in this tutorial. x-index is not needed.
Browser Compatibility & Usability
Your site looks the same in most browsers, and it is navigable and functions in Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox and Safari.
However, there is one glitch. You have the background fixed but it is not fixed in Firefox. It looks rather tacky as it scrolls. You are using bgproperties="fixed" which is not browser compliant. You should be using CSS to specify the background instead:
body {
background: url ('http://i31.tinypic.com/30uvo0j.png');
background-attachment: fixed;
}
The navigation is clear but it needs to be more defined. Try horizontal navigation. Also, this clashes with the title of your blog posts. They should be differentiated in some way.
The font is fairly easy to read but I think it could be a tad darker. A colour like #444444 would do a better job without being too black.
Layout
The colours stand out and are quite striking. They make a nice bold statement on a subtle grey background. However, I would suggest against this off background that doesn’t repeat well vertically. The reason is that in a large screen resolution, you would see the background tile downwards and it doesn’t look very nice. This would have a much bolder, nicer effect if the stripes were not curved, but straight down the page.
The header image font and colours are nice, but I have seen the same font used many times on websites. I like the simplicity of the design, but sans serif fonts would have been preferable for the CSS to support the bold colours. I’m not really keen on the underlined parts of the CSS either; they should be bolder, again, to support the bold colours. I think you can also edit the Cutenews entries so that the date appears differently. The format it’s in now looks a bit tacky.
As I said, the navigation could be more defined. In that sense, “domain” and “content” would be better linked as “website” and “visitor”.
Content
You could organise the sidebar a bit. There are too many text effects in the little owner section. Also, there are so many gaps for affiliates to apply. Why not just have one column? There is a bit too much going on in the sidebar.
The link code in the sidebar should be displayed using <code>, not <textarea>, and in doing so, convert the code.
Domain
This section, as I mentioned, would be better named as “website” as not everyone is familiar with the term “domain”.
It would a good idea to link to Parade Hosting and Cutenews on the “About” page. I’m finding the green italic text a bit hard to read too.
aloud should be allowed.
On the advertising page, Freewebs and Piczo should be capitalised. You need to mention on this page whether people should pay before applying, after applying, or when you reply.
On the affiliates page I should be capitalised.
aswell should be as well
piczo/freewebs should be Piczo/Freewebs.
It would be nice to include a reason why the sites on your credits page helped you.
On the toybox page you should link the “toy” back to the website you got it from.
Plugboard – self explanatory.
Content
This section should be renamed to “Visitor” or “Resources”.
The affiliate images are really simple and are rarely used, however, are nice.
The backgrounds are okay. The stripes are really harsh coloured; softer, less bright colours would work better. I’ve seen the noise background too many times on other websites.
The blank buttons are very simple and the “noise” ones look pixelated.
The bullets are very nice. You could make ones with a less shiny texture as well.
The colour schemes are okay; there’s not much one can say about colour schemes.
The icons are okay. The celebrity images are not that original though – I have seen many icons with these celebrities. You should stick to original graphics.
I like the idea of the icon sets. However, do use more original graphics – not celebrity ones – and these would be more popular.
I don’t like the “shiny” effect of the pixel text. The “new” ones are hard to read because the outline seems so bold. I think you could do with a more subtle outline. The black is rather dark, and overall, the colours should be lighter.
The premade layouts are actually very nice but they would be more useful if you managed to code these. I am not fond of the bright blue outline you’ve used on some of the layouts as well – the Zac Efron and Katy Perry ones, for example. It’s a bit too bright and stands out. You should have used a different colour, and one that better suits the layout colour scheme.
You have striked links for stocks and textures, stating that they’re “coming soon”. You should take down these links until you already have the pages up and ready.
I don’t really see much use for the extended backgrounds. They look pretty easy to make and can be done with CSS as well.
Most of the edited images look okay. Not this one of the Jonas Brothers, though. The editing on their face is completely unnatural. They look like mannequins. And the touching on the eyes is way too harsh. You’ve done this in a lot of the other images too. This one is nice, in terms of the overall effect, but the eyes and lips are rather frightening; they look like zombies!
“PNGs” is not a terribly accurate name. I know it is within the teenage parlance and has been so adopted, but even then, the idea isn’t that original. I have seen many websites with PNGs.
You didn’t make the fonts; therefore you should not be redistributing them.
The programs are just a resource list.
On the Bandslam review, I don’t know why you state your name as “France3sca” with a “silent 3″. Numbers shouldn’t be in names anyway.
on, It should be on, it
Aly’s part (:. should be Aly’s part. :)
On the “different types of popularity” article you have some mistakes.
your the should be you’re the
your this kind should be you’re this kind
your the positive should be you’re the positive
worddss should be words
your probably should be you’re probably
you!Not should be you! Not
as the a should be as the
be told as should be be known as
freindly should be friendly
its it’s should be it’s
your popular, your a leader should be you’re popular, you’re a leader
This article has a good message and it’s quite unique.
On the “shake your shyness” article:
recite speech should be recite a speech
Lets should be Let’s
ryhme should be rhyme
competley should be completely
i’ll blank while i’m should be I’ll blank while I’m
good nights should be good night’s
bathroom before should be bathroom beforehand
the have should be they have
its time should be it’s time
that you you should be that way you
your saying should be you’re saying
your still should be you’re still
friends faces should be friends’ faces
your looking should be you’re looking
your not should be you’re not
apart of should be a part of.
On the health and beauty tips article:
cause clumps should be develop clumps
Hand Mirror should be hand mirror
babys bottem should be baby’s bottom
your take should be you take
its still should be it’s still.
There is only one article under fashion. I don’t see the need for a subpage when you only have one. I find this little idea quite unique though!
its still should be it’s still.
Hosting
A few mistakes:
immediatly should be immediately
If haven’t should be If you haven’t
html should be HTML
your ready should be you’re ready.
Reviews
A few mistakes:
a)to should be a) to
b)to should be b) to
You should remove those on the waiting list once they are done.
Originality & Creativity
You’ve definitely got skill in graphics, although I didn’t find the images you used to be very original. I did, however, find that your articles were unique, unlike your graphics.
While you had some impressive skills I didn’t think that the layout showed your full potential.
Organisation & Errors
Fairly well organised. The CSS could be improved to look a lot neater.
Don’t confuse “your” with “you’re” [you are]. Other than that your writing was very good and well structured in your articles.
Overall Comment
I found that your site had some rather generic and simple content like link buttons and affiliate images, as well and PNGs. Your graphics showed a good sense of design.
Using more original photographs for your graphics would make your website stand out more. Try this list of 100 legal free stock images.
The coding needs a bit of attention in terms of getting the structure right and shortening and cleaning up codes. Overall you have the potential for a great website, but you need to focus on your strengths and use them – good graphics skills for more original graphics – while making sure you improve your weaknesses.
3 Comments so far — leave one?
shannon says:
HI i looked at the website in question and i think it wa ok but could have done with a bit more attention i agree with the domain bit being called website because i didnt no what domain meant when i first came to make websites
so i didnt visit when i was on peoples sites the domain page 
.
oh btw if you visit my site http://www.sunshinegraphics-.piczo.com its a mess because im having a big revamp
x
anyway in have to go to school now x shannon@sunshinegraphics-
Reply to this comment »
Georgie replied:
I gave this website all the attention I had, thanks.
Reply to this comment »
taryn says:
i think she may have meant the creator of this site being reviewed needed to give more attention to their site, not precisely the reviewer.
Reply to this comment »