skip to content skip to navigation

September 26 2007: Review: Risque

Filed under Reviews

Please note that I am writing this as a guest reviewer for Rhiannon as she has an insane number of people waiting for a review. Help a girl out!

Reviewing: Sarah of Risque

First Impressions

Your layout! It’s fluid! Your text! It’s readable! Your navigation! It’s clearly marked! Your content! It’s not generic! This review’s going to be easy on both of us. I can already tell that your coding is generally up to scratch, and your spelling is top-notch too, so the points I have to make are minor adjustments to improve aesthetics, semantics, and organisation.

Basically, you’re off to a flying start. If this was the Olympics, I’d give you a gold for effort. Huzzah!

Layout

A list of little things with your layout that makes me feel like I’m going to puke (exaggeration of course, but effective exaggeration!):

All are minor issues when you look at them individually, but collectively they bring the general tone of your layout down, causing what could be an excellent layout, to be a mediocre layout. Let’s take it from the top shall we?

Firstly, the lack of adequate padding with the header logos. I realise that you have two different background images that you’re floating left and right - both though, are too close to the edge of the header box. As you have more than enough empty black space between the two images even on a 800×600 resolution, I suggest that you add at least 10px padding to the top and left side of the “Risque” image, and the same amount on the bottom and right side of the butterfly image. That way, they won’t be as squashed up against the edge of the header box as they currently are - resulting in a more ‘balanced’ look to the header altogether.

Secondly, the gapingly chasm-like space between content and navigation. Slight exaggeration of course (I’m very good at that), but you could conceivably lessen the space by 30px and the gap would still be more than adequate. Visual example here.

Thirdly, timestamp on blog entries! Without putting a date/time on your entries, how are your (random, not regular) visitors to know when you last updated your blog? For all they (I) know, you could have last posted two minutes ago, five months ago, a year ago. Without that visible hint of “Yes, I update my site regularly”, you may find that people will just click that little red ‘x’. To quote myself from another review:

The theory is that new visitors to blogs look immediately for the ‘last updated’ date of the site - and by displaying the last entry date prominently, you’re reassuring them that, yes, you do update frequently, and yes, they really should stick around and keep visiting to read new things you have to say.

Easily done right? In case you lost the bit of coding that shows the date in WordPress: <?php the_time('F j Y'); ?>. Obviously you can change the F j Y, to your preferred way of displaying the date, but that’s up to your own discretion.

Fourthly, lack of a max-width on the layout. I love fluid layouts, I really do. If it came down to a choice between a fluid layout or oral sex from Christian Bale, I might even choose the fluid layout. (Might. We’ll see what happens when Christian comes over first.) However, I firmly believe that fluid layouts should only be fluid up to a certain degree. Once those with larger screens (Leila informs me resolutions and those high-tech new-fangled screens go nearly up to 2000px now) pop onto your site, they’re going to see a layout that stretches to…let’s see, what’s 80% of 2000px? A layout that’s 1600px wide? That’s just killer.

I’d suggest adding a max-width of 950px-1000px to the container div (I believe you’re calling it “pagewidth”). Once a layout becomes too wide, it simply makes it increasingly difficult for a reader to easily follow on from the end of one line, to the start of the next. It’s a distance/readability problem. And if you’re not making it easy for your visitors to read your content…*shrug* It’s not a winning formula.

Fifthly, placement and display of meta style information. I’m referring primarily to the “Posted in CATEGORY // COMMENTS »” and the way you’ve chosen to display it. While I like the fact you’ve a) decided to give that soft minty green background to the information, as well as b) used that awesomely cute comment bubble, there are multiple things that you can do with the presentation to make it more fitting to meta information, as well as more balanced/aesthetically-pleasing.

I definitely center the whole thing (rather than left-aligning), just to create that visual balance. Additionally, considering adding some top/bottom padding to the element as well, so that, like the header, the content within isn’t too close to the edges. About 5px should be more than sufficient. I’d also look into moving the comment bubble next to “COMMENT »” rather than next to “Posted in CATEGORY”, as logically, it makes more sense for the comment icon to be next to the comments link (kind of a duh moment). I’d even suggest making the font-size smaller - something more akin to 85%-90% of its current size should be more than adequate as the meta information is hardly the focus of your content. It’s more like an afterthought, so the font size should reflect that.

Sixthly, the lack of distinction between the footer and the rest of the content. Essentially? There’s no distinction. The font is the same size, and there’s no visible “line” or element that separates the two. What I suggest you do is to totally remove the footer/meta information from the white content background, and to place it below on the green background. Below’s a mockup of what it could look like:

screenshot of possibility

There are other options of course, but the general idea is to firmly separate the footer and the ‘normal’ content through use of a border, a background, differing font-size, or the like. You can do it any which way, just experiment a bit.

Coding-wise, you’re generally okay, there’s really just a few things you have to look into. The first, semantic use of header tags. The second, CSS condensing. The third, overuse of div layers.

  1. Semantic use of header tags. I’m hugely in favour of semantics as anyone who knows me will tell you (fairly pedantic about them actually!), so it hurts me to see that while you use <h2> tags properly for your blog entry headers, there’s no sign of a <h1> header at all. Luckily, this is easily fixed - you need only to change your <div id="header"><img src="http://risque.stopcrashgo.com/wp-content/themes/ohiwish/img/headtxt.png" class="centered" alt="" /></div> for <div id="header"><h1 class="logo"></h1></div> with the following as your CSS:

    #header{
    background: #000 url('http://risque.stopcrashgo.com/wp-content/themes/ohiwish/img/butterfly.png') no-repeat bottom right;
    height: 80px;
    margin: 0;
    padding: 10px 10px 30px 10px;
    }

    #logo {
    background: #000 url('http://risque.stopcrashgo.com/wp-content/themes/ohiwish/img/headtxt.png') no-repeat top left;
    height: 100px;
    width: 300px;
    float: left;
    margin: 0;
    padding: 0;
    }

    Congratulations, you have now used header tags correctly.

  2. See what I did there with the background properties? I combined them onto the one line, which is something you can do with a lot of CSS properties (e.g. font, margin, padding, border, background, etc.). This brings me onto my second point about your CSS: your repetition of a lot of elements. I suggest you read this article by Roger Johansson (it’s one of my favourites) regarding how to condense CSS coding to make it more efficient and fast-loading. It’s certainly something that your current stylesheet could do with.
  3. Your overuse of div layers is a bit tragic really. I see a lot of classes in your HTML which isn’t defined at all in your CSS - leading me to the conclusion that it’s really just been coded in to make your coding bulky. Things like <div class="post"> and <div class="entry"> should be removed. Good coding is all about condensing your coding as much as possible - to do the most with the fewest lines of code.

Lastly for this section, I’m going to say to you the same thing I said to Sandra:

I’d also look into improving your WordPress permalinks in order to create better search rankings. If you go into “Options” in your WordPress control panel, then click on “Permalinks” and choose the “date and name based” option, that’s much more search engine friendly.

Mmmkay? Moving on.

Content

Alrighty, content. As soon as I click onto “About Me”, I see a huge ugly “You are here: Home » Sarah O’Rourke” smack bang under the heading, dominating the page. A page trail like this should be given a font size of 90% or so, aligned right, and placed just under the navigation, not in the middle of the page. Put it somewhere unobtrusive, but where it’s still easily accessible.

The “Contact Me?” link shouldn’t be centered (it’s isolated on larger resolutions), and you should always try to keep important things like links/text aligned the same (e.g. left-aligned) for consistency. I see the contact page itself is powered by aMailzing…you might want to check out this blog entry. Security errors galore! Try this contact form from Tutorialtastic instead. Don’t say I didn’t warn you!

Regarding the page itself, I see a lot of links entitled “About Sarah - By a random person your visitors will never have heard of”. Hmmm. What you could do to make these links less repetitive, is to combine all four pages into one, entitled “About Sarah From The Mouths Of Others”. As there isn’t much content on each individual page to begin with, this shouldn’t be a problem at all - though I would suggest you use page anchors to jump to each relevant section.

In fact, as there really isn’t much in this section in general (all pages are extremely short and content-empty), I’d even place the autobiography on the main page. You’ll have your basics, then your autobiography, and at the bottom of the page, you can have that “More About Me From The Mouths Of Others” link. That format would be more visitor-friendly (less clicking back and forth through pages with little to no content), and would give the allusion of more content.

Some bones I have to pick with your autobiography:

Moving onto the next section, “Articles”. Your introductory sentence is actually quite unnecessary. I’d delete “Here are some of the various articles I have wrote about an array of topics” (I mean, duh!), and move “If you have a topic you would like to suggest, feel free to contact me” below the articles, as a footnote of sorts. As for the articles themselves…

…essentially, I think you need to change the title of this section to “Writings”, not “Articles”, in order to cover the range of different written pieces/styles you display.

You need to be careful with your “Photography” section. Rather than resizing 800×600 images with HTML and putting 20 of these fake thumbnails on a page (think of those poor dialup users!), you need to create proper thumbnails (e.g. shrink these images in a photo editing program, and link the smaller image {aim for a maximum of 10kb-15b for each of those small thumbnail images} to the larger original) that load faster. You have to understand that not everyone is on broadband and fast connections.

I confess myself confused as to why you display other people’s photography. Surely this is your site? If you were aiming to become a larger graphics resource (something like Skyefairy which brings the creative works of dozens of artists together), I could perhaps understand why you offer the chance for others to display their work - however the structure and other content of the site would suggest that it is a personal website with a touch of extra content for visitor perusal. How does displaying other people’s work fit into this? It seems almost as though you’re trying to fill up this page and make up for the fact that you have only a few ‘original/self-taken’ photographs, by using the work of others. In any case…fix up your form. No more aMailzing!

“Reviews”. You need to change your submit form (aMailzing security flaws, etc. etc.). I’d also suggest that you find a more effective way of displaying the links on this page, rather than simply centering them. As they work as a sub-navigation on the page, they need to be more prominent…try this link display method, it’s one of my favourites.

What I disagree with however, is your statement “there’s no need to be rude”, and essentially, your entire “What are follow up articles?” article. A negative response from a reviewee in itself is not a crime, nor is it being rude. An immature negative response from a reviewee isn’t a crime either. What is a ‘crime’ though, is not being able to understand that if you can dish out the constructive criticism, you should be able to handle the critique of the failings inherent in your criticism.

Take your review of Katherine’s site as an example (there’s no date on the review so I don’t know if the review is in reference to her current layout). If I were her, I would have critiqued the following statements you made:

  1. I would like to express a concern which I have had for a while now, that being that you often find another person’s website to obsess over and in that process you might find yourself copying their style, phrases and/or attitudes.
  2. Your header image is somewhat original, though poorly made.
  3. Another point worth making is that you’re using div styles to align your layout and so on my 1028×768 resolution it looks odd as it isn’t centred.
  4. Maybe you should run your pages though a spell checker before publishing them.

Firstly, very little creative works these days are entirely original or unique. Originality itself is a flawed concept as the word ‘original’ can both mean old (the original, the first), and new (unique). Katherine could conceivably copy Dan as much as she wants, and she could still be original - being creative is generally thought of as appropriating the best parts of what already exists, and to put one’s own spin on it. One could argue that Risque itself isn’t original, nor have you found your own unique style, as fluid one-column layouts with a simple header, with navigation underneath can be found everywhere on the Internet. Katherine’s site could conceivably be thought of as more original as she has brought several differing elements, all drawn from the best of the best (rainbows, the best of nature, a model, the best of fashion and human beings, words, the best of communicative methods…).

Secondly, your statement that Katherine’s header image is original goes against your initial assessment of her not being unique. You’re contradicting yourself within the space of two paragraphs. Additionally, the latter part of this statement claims that the header is poorly made, yet doesn’t give a reason for it. Why is it poorly made? Without a greater hint (e.g. “poorly made as the figures have been cut out sloppily in Photoshop”), it’s hardly constructive criticism.

Thirdly, it is recommended that div layers are used to style layouts. The way you’ve phrased this sentence suggests that you think div layers are the reason why her layout isn’t centered. You would have done better to introduce her to the concept of a wrapper/container div which is centered on the screen, linking her perhaps to this tutorial at Tutorialtastic.

Fourthly, it seems somewhat hypocritical that you suggest Katherine make good use of a spell checker, when within this review alone, I found these spelling/grammatical errors: “that being that you often find” (as you often find), “I know that because” (I know this because), “Piczo onwards and so, I can say” (Piczo onwards, and so I can say), “you would have either used” (you had either used), “it aint too long” (it ain’t too long), “a blog wasn’t it.” (a blog wasn’t it?), “the internet has had on your” (the internet has had on you), “none of which generic” (none of which are generic)…do you get the point?

So um, yes. Essentially, I think your “there’s no need to be rude” view of replies to your reviews is a crock of shit misguided. You’re responsible for making sure that your reviews are logical and well thought-out and reasoned - if they are, then you wouldn’t have to worry about those possible rude reviews of your reviews.

Next section - “Site”. Ha, I hope you see the irony in your statement “Let’s keep it short and sweet, seeing as I don’t have a lot of time”, because this page actually has more content than your About Me section. If you didn’t spend much time creating this section, I shudder to think of the miniscule effort you put into the content that actually matters. Like I said to Sandra:

I always see it as a problem of a personal site/journal when there’s more information offered about the site itself than there is about the blogger/owner themselves. After all, what’s more important - the message, or the medium?

The message obviously. You’re the message. Your site is the medium. Pay more attention to yourself, and less to the site. Comprende?

Some things to note in this section in general:

I’ll leave your content there - I think I’ve covered most of it.

Summary

Yes, nothing but criticisms and “OMG YOU SUCK” throughout this review. Boohoo. Rest assured though, I actually liked your site. It’s very very rare these days for me to ‘discover’ a new webbie who a) is willing to learn and accept criticism (I love that you acknowledge that Rhiannon’s reviews have helped you immeasurably) and who b) has what appears to have more than the usual number of brain cells than the average teenager. It is because of point A that I was so willing to be harsh throughout this review and point out the failings - I know that you’ll take these criticisms and carefully consider them, as you have done with other critiques in the past.

Great job Sarah. You’re now officially bookmarked. Congratulations.

9 Responses to “Review: Risque”

  1. Wow, what an in depth review? How long on average does it take for you to complete one?

    LOL, but I must comment on this… of course that’s the one thing I would spot out and comment on.

    “If it came down to a choice between a fluid layout or oral sex from Christian Bale, I might even choose the fluid layout”

    I never would! That’s not a hard choice for me.

    … of course that’s the one thing I would spot out and comment on.

    Reply: Mmm…I never do a review in one sitting (I get distracted too easily), but this particular review would have taken about three hours all up I think, spread over three nights. (I put the Christian part in just for youuuuuu :P)

    Rafia on September 26 2007 #

  2. … Damn, I almost find myself hoping you’ll pluck my site out of the PSGR queue.

    That reminds me, I should double-check that Rhiannon’s planning to do my blog and not the main site.

    Reply: I try not to review sites I frequent regularly, otherwise I can’t really look at it through fresh eyes. :) I think Rhiannon and Nellie have combined forces and completed your review?

    Jack on September 26 2007 #

  3. Wow, Amanda - this is an excellent review. Help Rhiannon and then start your own WPR site?

    Reply: Eheh, not going to happen. I owned Umb-Rella Reviews for almost two years - the stress of completing 5000+ word reviews fortnightley in order to keep up with demand was too much. I prefer it this way - only reviewing when I have time, and when I can pick and choose the sites in question. It’s kind of my version of an unrequested review - they request one (so can’t argue about receiving it), but they don’t request it from me (so they can bitch at me for being the one to give it to them).

    Chantelle on September 26 2007 #

  4. Hey, “semantic” kind of rhymes with “pedantic,” hahaha… Okay, I must have eaten something weird for dinner or something.

    “Keep in mind that a proper article would involve quotes from reliable sources, links to such sources, formal language, and well reasoned ideas and concepts that are placed in a logical manner.”

    So are articles like essays? I never knew that…

    Kycoo on September 26 2007 #

  5. Hey, inspired by Kycoo, I gotta ask… what would you title a section of considered opinion pieces that don’t necessarily cite references? “Writings” sounds so… generic-personal-site that I hate to use it, “Essays” seems like it should be longer and cite sources, because essays are what I wrote in college. “Articles” are short things that run in magazines, and don’t necessarily quote sources, right? Or should we just go with something more generic like “Non-fiction”?

    Jack on September 26 2007 #

  6. That was yet again an excellent review and I enjoyed reading it. I have to ask as well as Kycoo and Jack about the articles thing. I have it as “articles” on my site and i know only one of them is really a true article the other two are just opinions/what not do do list, would i put it under writings instead?

    Reply: While “Writings” is, like Jack said, generic, it really is the only title that fully encompasses the whole spectrum of writing styles/finished product. I mean, you can always be creative, and name it something like “Papyrus”, or “Ink” instead, but “Writings” is more straightforward, and so from a plain English/accessibility view, it’s the most appropriate.

    Bobbi-lee on September 26 2007 #

  7. I am responding to your reply here, I hope you don’t mind but…

    OMG, Thank you girl! I feel so loved :) =*

    Rafia on September 26 2007 #

  8. Hiya, I’m the owner of Risque and I’d like to thank you for giving me such an in-depth review! You obviously know what you’re talking about and I’m sure that your review will have done my website (no capitalised ‘W’!) nothing but good. Cheers again.

    Reply: No problem Sarah! Hope you can get something out of it. :)

    Sarah on September 27 2007 #

  9. Hiya, I was hoping you could help me with something. I changed my permalinks like you told me to, but now the post comments and cateogory links are messed up. Do you know what I’ve done wrong?

    Reply: Emailed you. :)

    Sarah on September 28 2007 #

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply