Review – The UberReview
Web page: http://www.uberreview.com/
Accessed on Tuesday, 31st July 2012 @ about 4:30pm GMT+1
The UberReview contains some gadget reviews, but also many posts showing the widest (or wildest?) range of inventions and gadgets.
Finding the web page
The address itself is quite easy, if you already know the site. The www part is optional.
If you know the site but don’t want to guess the address, it is very easy to find it on other search engines. If you use the keyword “uberreview” to perform a search you will discover it among the very top results (usually at the top). Be careful, though, as you need to make sure you put two ‘r’ characters; otherwise, you may still find the site, but through some internal pages.
The page loads pretty fast, considering how much is in it, but seems to have a fixed size, not allowing the best usage of screen estate.
The posts’ background may take longer, making it difficult to read the first posts while the page is still loading.
Use of technology
Technology is used mainly to connect to social networks.
There are some usual flash adverts.
No special abuse of useless and often harming technology has been found there.
Hardly any abbreviations can be found and they can be considered common language.
Quite good and effective.
Fitness for purpose
No problems there, either; no “About” section present from the home page.
Very simple, but effective.
None available. This can make it difficult to find certain sections of the website, particularly taking into account some issues explained in the next section.
The page looks nice. Some writing is dark on a darker background, reducing contrast to the point it may become unreadable by certain people and/or devices.
No overlaps have been found on the page. This means all content is clearly displayed as intended and there is no content hidden by other page elements.
Drop down lists
There were some and they may be easily missed. Lacking a site map and a good contrast colour scheme means you may have to rely on the search function to find something you know should be there somewhere, or make sure you look carefully at the page and its active elements.
There was no explicit accessibility statement; this means some accessibility programs may not offer users this page to browse. Although it is not always the case, this may also mean accessibility is not given much priority on page development.
Whether the lack of such statement is an actual flaw is arguable; however, it never hurts to add one, particularly as this site may pose a bit more issues than the ones reviewed so far (without being too bad, though).
There is no explicit validation button on the page. This means it is harder to verify the page is compliant with coding standards. A page that is not compliant may show correctly on the devices and browsers it has been tested on, but may present nasty surprises elsewhere.
Using W3C validator, the page showed as HTML 5. The validation returned errors and warnings, showing lack of compliance.
This is not uncommon, particularly in complex pages like this one. No major errors have been detected, but full compliance would not hurt and it would be worth the effort.