back to Completed Reviews

Site Name: Ponterosso
Owner: Jessica
Reviewed by: Georgina
Reviewed on: 25th August 2009

Site Name

The site name is very nice and easy to remember. Looking through your site history I notice it also has a lovely meaning behind it.

Coding and Validation

Your coding is valid. There are a few warnings from your FanUpdate entries. It is better that you eventually code in XHTML, as it is a better form of HTML and is now more common and widely used.

On many of your other pages besides the index, you have a few errors as you have placed </div> after </html>. When validating, make sure you not only validate the layout, but the content on pages too.

Your CSS is valid.

While your stylesheet is rather small you can make improvements to shorten your CSS. For example:

body {
color: #8C5455;
font-family: "Book Antiqua", "Bookman Old Style";
font-size: 12px;
margin: 0px;

Can be shortened to:

body {
color: #8C5455;
font: normal 12px "Book Antiqua", "Bookman Old Style";
margin: 0;

You can make other subtle changes to shorten your coding as well. Audiorush has a tutorial on how you can further shorten CSS code.

On some pages I see that you’re using <center>. As this code is deprecated, you should be using a div class or other element to center it:

.center {
text-align: center;
}

Which can be used:

<p class="center">centered text</p>

Browser Compatibility & Usability

Your site looks the same in most browsers, and it is navigable and functions in Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Safari, and Opera.

It’s fairly easy to see the navigation. You are using images for the navigation though, which can be a problem for people who cannot view images or have them turned off, in which case a site map or alternative navigation would be necessary.

The text is fairly easy to read but because of the layout being a bit on the larger side, the text would look nicer a bit bigger to fit. In darker parts of the background, text is also a bit hard to see so making the main text a tad darker would be better.

The layout is very wide, so keep in mind that it will not look that great in a smaller resolution and your visitors may have a bit of a harder time getting around. Keep your layouts no wider than this, as a note for layouts you make in future.

You’re using tables for the layout which isn’t recommended. Tables aren’t very accessible with some operating systems. As you’re splitting the image up into many pieces to view it on your website, it actually takes a much longer time to load compared to if the layout was one whole image. This is because the browser must send more HTTP requests for each image.

Layout

Compared to the layout that I looked at in your last review, this one is a lot better. The colours are very striking and the detail in the image catches my eye.

It’s a bit hard to tell whether the images are a blend of different flowers or just a whole image together, but nevertheless, the design is very nice. The blue shaded lines over the image are a bit too harsh. They attract too much attention to the image, which already stands out as it is. On the other hand, the subtle blue grid lines in the background are a nicer touch.

You’ve done a good job with the CSS; you’ve included both blue and green for less noticeable parts of the main body of text. The yellow for the links, while a rather nice colour, doesn’t match the rest of the layout. Perhaps a shade of green would be a better idea.

Content

Owner

On this page there are a few mistakes:
or high school should be of high school
then science should be than science
cheese,however should be cheese, however
Chinesefood should be Chinese food
Beyoncef should be Beyonce
me, I should be me; I
with out should be without.

Site

You have a “Reviews Received” link at the top of this page, and it looks out of place because it’s the only link there. You should include credits and rules here too, or alternatively, have the links in “further links” under the heading “Site” (along with the rules and FAQ and so on).
god.Textures should be god. Textures
when I choose should be when I chose
name, there should be name; there.

You should have spaces after “email me”, “MSN” and “AIM”.

On the received reviews page, some of the reviewers’ names are in a different style because you have linked them to their profiles on rev.iew.me. Perhaps link the “rev.iew.me” text instead, to make the table even.
Urnan should be Urban.

The rules are a nice thing to include on your website as a quick reference point.
me removed,replaced should be be removed, replaced
a link back should be A link back
you’r website should be your website
articals should be articles
patterns ect should be patterns, etc.

Hosting

A few mistakes:
.net)or should be .net) or
.com)or should be .com) or.

Resources

The patterns are very nice. I know that many people are in search of simple patterns in this style. It’s good that you have a range of colours because that’s usually what people look for.

There’s a good variety of brushes. I think you could have the imagepack as an image on its own rather than a zipped file. It can be a bit of a nuisance for people to find the zipped file on their computer and then go about unzipping it. An option with a collation of all the brushes into one image would be helpful for some people. It also doesn’t take up too much space and you can use a free image host.

I don’t see masks often; your masks are a unique addition, however, personally, I’m not entirely sure if people use them.

The textures look great – again you have a variety of colours and also a large variety of types. Some of them look like they’ve come from the same atmosphere and surroundings, which makes them quite versatile and does give visitors more choice.

There’s not much one can say about colour schemes; I see a lot of bright colours. There are a few softer colour schemes but having more would be a good idea as well.

On the actions page palett should be palette, and click should be Click.

Personally I don’t use actions but all of these do a great job in refining the original image and giving it quite a nice glow.

The stock photography looks great and most of it is of good quality too. The general colouring of the photographs looks rather dull, though. In photos such as the ones of the trees, this can be an advantage. But looking at the photographs of the flowers, they do need to stand out more, being coloured pieces of nature against green.

The premade layouts are relatively simple. Most of them are nice, but the colours of the background in the Rob Pattinson one look very dull – greys, browns… The others are quite nice and use some brighter colours.

The icons are nice, but the Disney ones are rather plain. The ones under “other” look the best; they’re more unique (no celebrity images) and have nicer effects and text added subtly.

The graphics are nice and have nice effects. Of course, celebrity images should be avoided due to possible copyright violation. Additionally it isn’t considered original to use them. You’ve used a lot of Twilight images so variety and other kinds of graphics would be a good idea.

Many of these scans are familiar from your old website, and I still have the same opinion on them – they’re great, high quality, and very useful.

Reviews

Nothing much to say here.

Originality & Creativity

Your website is quite original and you have a lot of creative and artistic works. A few of the graphics with celebrity images are all too common, though.

Organisation & Errors

I didn’t spot any broken images or links, however you did have some spelling/grammatical mistakes that should be fixed.

Overall Comment

Overall you did a great job on your website, and I can see that you have put more effort into your coding and other fine details of your website.

There isn’t much to improve on – your website is well designed. I don’t have many suggestions. You offer a lot of great resources such as scans and photos but I think you could share a few of your graphics and layouts. Your style is great and I’m sure people would like to see more premade layouts that you can offer.

Rating

(out of 5)