Normal, large, larger and larger

Just another test. How many times is it possible to increase the font-size before there appears a horizontal scrolbar. This time the test is in Firefox on a 1024x768 pixel monitor.

1. bol.com 1x 'CTRL +' gives a horizontal scrollbar
2. funda.nl 4x 'CTRL +' gives a horizontal scrollbar
3. helenahoeve.nl After 8x 'CTRL +' (the maximum fontsize), there is still no horizontal scrollbar
4. nu.nl 5x 'CTRL +' gives a horizontal scrollbar
5. philips.nl 1x 'CTRL +' gives a horizontal scrollbar
6. postbus51.nl 1x 'CTRL +' gives a horizontal scrollbar
7. rabobank.nl 1x 'CTRL +' gives a horizontal scrollbar
8. vrom.nl 1x 'CTRL +' gives a horizontal scrollbar
9. wehkamp.nl 1x 'CTRL +' gives a horizontal scrollbar
10. wnf.nl 2x 'CTRL +' gives a horizontal scrollbar

This gives the following ranking for allowed font-size:

Only helenahoeve.nl did not get an horizontal scrollbar! That's great.

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. 

Lipperhey scores

There is a great tool which probably make all other tests unnecessary. It is called Lipperhey. The results are:

1. bol.com Technical 7.2, SEO Score 73%, Populatity 10.0, Overall score 8.2
2. funda.nl Technical 6.4, SEO Score 75%, Populatity 10.0, Overall score 8.0
3. helenahoeve.nl Technical 8.6, SEO Score 76%, Populatity 7.0, Overall score 7.7
4. nu.nl Technical 5.7, SEO Score 48%, Populatity 10.0, Overall score 6.8
5. philips.nl Technical 6.0, SEO Score 59%, Populatity 9.0, Overall score 7.0
6. postbus51.nl Technical 8.0, SEO Score 74%, Populatity 9.0, Overall score 8.1
7. rabobank.nl Technical 7.3, SEO Score 76%, Populatity 10.0, Overall score 8.3
8. vrom.nl Technical 7.2, SEO Score 55%, Populatity 10.0, Overall score 7.6
9. wehkamp.nl Technical 4.0, SEO Score 0%, Populatity 3.0, Overall score 2.3
10. wnf.nl Technical 7.5, SEO Score 67%, Populatity 9.0, Overall score 7.7

The most important thing to do seems to be getting more popular ;-)

Time to work on the backlinks. But first the results as a graph:

SERP Search results

SERP is standing for Search Engine Results Page, searching for the websites gives these results on Google:

1. bol Number 1
2. funda Number 1
3. helenahoeve Number 1
4. nu Number 1
5. philips Number 1
6. postbus51 Number 1
7. rabobank Number 1
8. vrom Number 1
9. wehkamp Number 1
10. wnf Number 1

The same for Bing:

1. bol Number 1
2. funda Number 1
3. helenahoeve Number 3 and 4, number 1 is helenahoeve.hyves.nl
4. nu Number 1
5. philips Number 1
6. postbus51 Number 1
7. rabobank Number 1
8. vrom Number 1
9. wehkamp Number 1
10. wnf Number 1

Last but not least. Yahoo!

1. bol Number 1
2. funda Number 1
3. helenahoeve Not on the first page
4. nu Not on the first page
5. philips Not on the first page, however philips.com (which redirects to philips.nl) is at number 1
6. postbus51 Number 1
7. rabobank Number 5, however rabobank.com is at number 1
8. vrom Number 1
9. wehkamp Number 1
10. wnf Number 1

Hmmm, I think I need to contact Bing and Yahoo about these results.

Pageranks

How visible are the test websites. Time to look at the pageranks.

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

See also this graph:

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.

Hot, not or useless

CommandShift3 is a website where people compare two sites a time. Lets see how hot the test websites are...

1. bol.com Preparing for battle
2. funda.nl Preparing for battle
3. helenahoeve.nl 14% won 3 of 21 battles
4. nu.nl 20% won 15 of 75 battles
5. philips.nl Preparing for battle
6. postbus51.nl Preparing for battle
7. rabobank.nl Preparing for battle
8. vrom.nl Preparing for battle
9. wehkamp.nl 20% won 18 of 88 battles
10. wnf.nl Preparing for battle

Hmmm there are not much battles, however the ranking is:

1. nu.nl, wehkamp.nl
2. helenahoeve.nl

It is a pity, I did not learn much from this test. Luckily there are more websites to review websites. Lets take a look at sitecritic.net...

1. bol.com Search results: None found
2. funda.nl Search results: None found
3. helenahoeve.nl Search results: None found
4. nu.nl Search results: None found
5. philips.nl Search results: None found
6. postbus51.nl Search results: None found
7. rabobank.nl Search results: None found
8. vrom.nl Search results: None found
9. wehkamp.nl Search results: None found
10. wnf.nl Search results: None found

Funny, but useless results.

May be we should try Website Judge...

1. bol.com 3 reviews, total score: 9
2. funda.nl 0 reviews
3. helenahoeve.nl 0 reviews
4. nu.nl 4 reviews, total score: 8
5. philips.nl 0 reviews
6. postbus51.nl 0 reviews
7. rabobank.nl 1 review, total score: 6
8. vrom.nl 0 reviews
9. wehkamp.nl 0 reviews
10. wnf.nl 0 reviews

If you want to take this serious, the ranking is:

1. bol.com
2. nu.nl
3. rabobank.nl

As far as I know now, these judge websites are useless.