Getting it all together

The website helenahoeve.nl is a great site which could be improved in the following ways:

Safety

1. Ask for ratings on www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/www.helenahoeve.nl;
2. Make the forms secure;

Accesability

1. Create a logical tab order through links, form controls, and objects by using the tabindex attribute;
2. Provide keyboard shortcuts to important links (including those in client-side image maps), form controls, and groups of form controls by using the accesskey attribute;

Update: According to the Dutch page http://www.webrichtlijnen.nl/handleiding/ontwikkeling/productie/links-navigatie/sneltoets-koppelingen/ the use of the accesskey attribute is not recommended.

Usability of the forms

1. Detect an error on a form as soon as possible;
2. Let the user correct the error on the form directly;

Popularity

1. Try to improve the visibility in search engines as Bing and Yahoo.

Thank you for following these tests. 

How to improve the forms

In one of the earlier tests I concluded that 6 of the 10 test websites do have a contact form. Let's see how good these forms are. I think the following questions are relevant:

1. Is it a secure form;
2. How much information is necessary;
3. What is the response to an error.

Let's see how secure the forms are:

1. helenahoeve.nl Not secure
2. philips.nl Not secure
3. postbus51.nl Secure
4. vrom.nl Not secure, note: vrom.nl redirects the user to the postbus51.nl forms
5. wehkamp.nl Secure
6. wnf.nl Secure

Not bad, 3 out of 6 forms are secure. The ranking is:

1. postbus51.nl, wehkamp.nl, wnf.nl
2. helenahoeve.nl, philips.nl, vrom.nl

Okay, how much information is necessary:

1. helenahoeve.nl 4, fields, 4 of them are required
2. philips.nl 18 fields, 5 of them are required
3. postbus51.nl 11 fields, 8 of them are required
4. vrom.nl 4 fields, 3 of them are required
5. wehkamp.nl 11 logical fields, none of them indicated as required (however 3 fields seems to be required)
6. wnf.nl 16 logical fields, 8 of them are required

Ranking these websites based on the number of fields, give this overview:

So far, so good, what is the response on an error (e.g. e-mail address is a@b,c with a comma instead of a dot).

1. helenahoeve.nl Error message that the e-mail address is not valid. You have to go back to the form to correct it.
2. philips.nl Error message that the e-mail address is not valid. You are able to correct it directly.
3. postbus51.nl Error message that the e-mail address is not valid. You are able to correct it directly.
4. vrom.nl Error message that the e-mail address is not valid at the moment you make the mistake. You are able to correct it directly.
5. wehkamp.nl Error message that the e-mail address is not valid. You are able to correct it directly.
6. wnf.nl Error message that the e-mail address is not valid. You have to click on the OK button before you are able to correct it.

Ranking the forms gives this list:

1. vrom.nl
2. philips.nl, postbus51.nl, wehkamp.nl
3. helenahoeve.nl, wnf.nl

Great, there are a few things I could improve:

1. Make the forms secure;
2. Detect the error as soon as possible;
3. Let the user correct the error directly.

Things to do to improve the quality of the code

The tests I have done so far learned me that the quality of the HTML code is very good compared with the other test sites. helenahoeve.nl is the only site without HTML errors, the only site who passes the automated WAI verification test and the only site who renders well in all test situations (see some older blogs on the webblog).

At this moment it is clear for me that I don't have to put energy in creating better HTML code.

Things to do to improve the User Safety

After the following safety tests I conclude that helenahoeve.nl:

1. is a save website;
2. has much less visitors as the other test sites;
3. is too small for Norton and the Web Of Trust;
4. is one of the two websites with a great and clear privacy policy;
5. is one of the two websites with clear contact information.

I think that I should ask people via the website to rate the Helenahoeve at www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/www.helenahoeve.nl

See the following tests for more details:

1. Google Save Browsing
2. Second Safety Test - McAfee SiteAdvisor
3. Third Safety Test - Norton Safe Web
4. Web Of Trust
5. Privacy Test
6. Contact options

How to futher improve the website

A good website is always under construction. The question is "What to do next?" To answer that question, you should know what to improve.

To decide what to improve I will compare the website of the Helenahoeve with sites with a great usability. These site are:

1. www.bol.com
2. www.funda.nl
3. www.nu.nl
4. www.philips.nl
5. www.postbus51.nl
6. www.rabobank.nl
7. www.vrom.nl
8. www.wehkamp.nl
9. www.wnf.nl

So I will test 10 sites, the 9 sites mentioned and of course www.helenahoeve.nl

I will test these sites on the following aspects (more suggestions are welcome):

1. User safety
1. Google Safe Browsing;
2. McAfee SiteAdvisor;
3. Norton Safe Web;
4. Web Of Trust;
2. Technology and devices
1. W3C Validator;
2. Web Guidelines;
3. Accessability WCAG
3. Attractivity
1. Speed tools.pingdom.com 
2. CommandShift3
4. Visability on the web
1. Pagerank
2. SERP for business name (Google, Yahoo, Bing)
3. Lipperhey

I will also test these 10 sites on several devices. I have planned to test these sites on the following devices:

1. Textbrowser (Lynx)
2. Smartphone
3. Nintendo DSi
4. Netbook
5. Normal computer
6. Television
7. Printer

By doing these tests I hope to find a few things to improve the site of the Helenahoeve.

I will keep you informed. Suggestions for these tests and of course for the site www.helenahoeve.nl are as always appreciated.

Hans, alias WebHel

Webmaster for the Helenahoeve