The Evil Pedants

This page will give you a list of the current reviewers and their profiles. The list is ordered alphabetically to prevent bloody fights... (Actually, Elysa just wanted to be at the top.)

Elysa

  • Browser: Mozilla Firefox 2.0
  • Connection Speed: 3.0 Mbps*
  • OS: Mac OS X 10.4
  • Resolution: 1024x768

As Veve likes to put it, my head is filled with too much technical mumble-jumble, despite my majoring in liberal arts. I am a big fan of simplicity. I value functionality and coordination above all. I believe that a well-designed website can be both practical and aesthetic. Excellent mechanical skills, brilliant English usage, original content and eye-pleasing color schemes are ways to brainwash me into loving your site. On the other hand, my highest-ranking pet peeves include undistinguishable navigation, unreadable text, undecipherable typing and unloadable images.

My main computer is a laptop; it runs on Mac OS X. This thing known as "Internet Explorer 5.5+" does not exist on my hard drive. If you force me to use another browser, resize my screen resolution, adjust my "monitor" contrast, etc., I'll have to switch to my old PC. It is old, cranky and has a mind of its own. Pick your poison.

*Note: Because I use a laptop as my primary computer, my connection speed depends greatly on my location. On a fine day, I'll be cruising along with a 6.0 Mbps connection, while on other days, I might be stuck with a 56 Kbps connection. Optimize your images and trust nothing.

Rilla

  • Browser: Mozilla Firefox 1.0
  • Connection Speed: 256 Kbps
  • OS: Windows XP
  • Resolution: 1024x768

I'm particularly picky on a fine day as I like balancing goodness and badness. So you may hope that the New Zealand weather is always bad. With that said however, I'm quite reluctant to cause web-dramas so I tend to take hours rephrasing to try soften my tone up a bit, even when I'm commenting about my utmost dislikes.

So here's a short little list of my "utmost dislikes": huge images (dimensions and file size), failure to achieve cross-browser (IE, Firefox and Opera) compatibility, horizontal scrollbars, layouts unsuitable for all resolutions 800x600 and up, pixel-stretches, intensive use of brushes, unreadable text, inconsistent organisation, "Under Construction" pages, broken links and images, automated popups of all kinds, monochrome designs, navigation that takes me more than five seconds to find... and so on.

Most of my reviews will be divided into these sections: design, content, coding and errors. But the sections will vary between sites.

Tyler

  • Browser: Mozilla Firefox 2
  • Connection Speed: 2.4 Mbps
  • OS: Mac OS X
  • Resolution: 1280x800

I've never understood people that apply for their site to be critiqued and later complain that the review was "unnecessarily harsh" in one form or another. I can't guarantee the mood I'll be in should I review your site, (and even better, I get to choose the "victim"), and therefore promise no amount of compliments or insults in my commentaries. Of course, it's the quality of your site that determines the outcome of the review, not my mood. Though, a word of advice: if you're the type that enjoys "sugarcoating," perhaps you should find another WPR. We all know there are plenty out there, perfectly willing and chomping at the bit to tell you what you want to hear.

When it comes to actually reviewing your site, I'm a compatibility nut. I look for a successful design, presentation, well-written and useful content, along with all the other aspects essential to modern web development. If your site is compiled of 600 nested tables and formatted with the likes of the "font" tag, save yourself the brutal torture and forget submitting at all. If you happen to have more sense than that, good luck.

Veve

  • Browser: Mozilla Firefox 1.0
  • Connection Speed: 5.0 Mbps
  • OS: Windows XP
  • Resolution: 1280x1024

I don't believe in grading, rating, critiquing or reviewing your site, although for simplicity's sake, we will call my commentaries as such. But really, that's all that they are—comments. How you perceive them is beyond my control, but let it be known that they are just opinions, just my opinion to be specific. (It was supposed to be this site's name, by the way—Just an Opinion—but I was bullied.) That being said, the tone of my reviews will depend greatly on my mood. If I'm happy and your site is crap, I might let you down a little easier. If I'm not, I'll let you know just how irritating your site can be. I believe in a balance among the appearance of the site, the content that it offers and the coding that holds everything together. No one component is more important than the others. My reviews can be broken down into two sections:

  1. Your main layout and its coding.
  2. The nature of your website. Does your content reinforce the purpose of the site? For example, if it's a graphic site, are you in the position to be providing graphics? If it's a shrine, does it have anything insightful, or are you confusing a shrine with a general fan-site? Stuff like that. And that's all there is to it.